PROPERff#— 

DEPARmenrTOimm;  m 


Do  not  remove  from  214  Dec.  Arts 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/argumentationdebOOIaycrich 


ARGUMENTATION 
AND   DEBATE 


^rt^^ 


ARGUMENTATION 
AND    DEBATE 


BY 
CRAVEN    LAYCOCK 

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR   OF  ORATORY  IN   DARTMOUTH    COLLEGE 
AND 

ROBERT  LEIGHTON  SCALES 

INSTRUCTOR   IN   ENGLISH   IN   DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON  :    MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1905 

.  ^11  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1904, 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  clcctrotyped.     Published  September,  1904; 
May,  1905. 


NortoooD  9rr00 

J.  8.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


TO 
CHARLES   FRANCIS   RICHARDSON 

TEACHER.  COLLEAGUE 

AND 

FRIEND 


PREFACE 

The  growing  recognition  of  the  importance  of 
Argumentation  as  a  separate  subject  of  study  in 
American  colleges,  and  the  increasing  emphasis  which 
is  put  upon  the  necessity  for  a  proper  method  of 
presenting  it,  are  probably  due  to  the  appreciation 
of  two  facts.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  coming  to  be 
acknowledged  that  Argumentation  is  a  peculiar  art, 
distinct  from  all  others.  Many  of  its  principles  are 
derived  from  the  fundamental  elements  of  other  arts 
and  sciences.  Formal  logic,  rhetoric,  oratory,  and 
the  rules  of  court  procedure  all  contribute  to  it  of 
their  precepts;  but  though  it  is  thus  composite  in 
nature,  it  is  essentially  a  unified  art,  demanding  in- 
vestigation for  its  own  sake.  Furthermore,  it  is 
realized  that  argumentative  skill  does  not  belong 
exclusively  to  any  one  profession  or  class  of  men. 
To  know  how  to  argue  is  necessary  not  alone  for 
the  lawyer  or  the  publicist,  but  equally  for  the 
preacher,  the  scientist,  the  business  man,  or,  indeed, 
for  any  one  who  may  wish  to  influence  the  opinions 
or  actions  of  his  fellows ;  it  is  a  power  which  every 
educated  man  should  have  an  opportunity  to  acquire. 
With  these  requisites  in  mind,  the  authors  have  made 
it  their  purpose,  taking  these  component  elements 
from  their  various  sources,  to  develop  from  them  a 


viii  Preface 

body  of  principles,  by  the  study  and  practice  of 
which  the  student  may  gain,  so  far  as  possible,  the 
ability  to  create  or  control  the  beliefs  of  others. 

Any  one  seeking  by  argumentation  to  influence 
the  thoughts  or  acts  of  another  must  employ  either 
the  written  symbol  or  the  spoken  word.  In  this  day 
of  the  newspaper,  the  magazine,  and  the  essay  much 
of  the  most  potent  argumentation  comes  from  the 
pen  or  the  public  press,  so  that  the  needs  of  the  hour 
call  for  training  in  the  written  form.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  large  class  of  students  who  are  in 
search  of  training  for  the  court  room,  the  deliberative 
assembly,  or  the  platform.  Consequently,  the  requi- 
sites of  both  these  kinds  of  presentation  must  be 
recognized  in  any  treatment  of  the  art  as  a  whole. 
Accordingly,  with  a  view  to  these  requirements,  the 
following  plan  has  been  adopted  in  presenting  the 
subject.  The  work  is  divided  into  two  parts  :  the  first 
contains  a  discussion  of  the  general  principles  of 
argumentation,  appHcable  aHke  to  written  and  to 
spoken  discourse ;  the  second  part  is  devoted  to  the 
setting  forth  of  certain  additional  precepts  peculiar 
to  oral  debate.  Finally,  realizing  that  a  thorough 
mastery  of  the  subject  can  come  only  from  continued 
practice,  the  authors  have  given,  in  the  Appendix,  a 
brief  outline  of  the  methods  of  instruction  which  they 
have  found  to  be  most  serviceable,  and  have  ventured 
a  few  suggestions  which  may  prove  helpful  in  sup- 
plementing the  study  of  the  text. 

Hanover,  N.H., 
May  30, 1904. 


CONTENTS 

PACK 

Introduction i 

PART    I 

ARGUMENTATION 

BOOK  I 

INVENTION 

CHAPTER 

I.    The  Proposition ii 

II.  The  Issues .        .28 

BOOK  II 

SELECTION 

I.  Preliminary  Reading 45 

II.  Evidence 58 

III.  Kinds  of  Arguments 84 

IV.  Fallacies 114 

BOOK  III 

ARRANGEMENT 

I.    General  Principles  of  Arrangement        .        .128 

II.    Brief-drawing 142 

iz 


X  Contents 

BOOK  IV 

PRESENTATION 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  General  Principles  of  Presentation        .        .181 

II.    The  Introduction 198 

III.  The  Discussion      .        .        .        .        .        .        .    226 

IV.  The  Conclusion 238 

V.    Refutation 248 

PART   II 
DEBATE 
I.    Debate 273 

Appendix 351 

Index 359 


PROPEm  OF 
DEPARTMENT  OF  0I1»1ATIC  ART 


ARGUMENTATION 
AND   DEBATE 


INTRODUCTION 

Argumentation  is  the  art  of  producing  in  others 
a  belief  in  the  ideas  which  we  wish  them  to  accept. 

Belief  is  an  element  which  is  most  truly  funda- 
mental in  the  ability  of  man  to  grow  and  in  his  power 
to  create.  It  is  the  beliefs  of  the  individual  about 
religion,  about  politics,  and  about  society,  which 
determine  his  attitude  toward  men  and  events,  and 
which  govern  his  actions  in  the  affairs  of  life.  More- 
over, a  man's  belief  is  rarely,  if  ever,  entirely  origi- 
nal :  his  creed  is  wrought  out  of  the  ideas  of  priests 
and  prophets;  his  political  principles  are  made  up 
of  materials  taken  from  economists  and  statesmen ; 
his  social  tendencies  are  influenced  by  the  theories 
of  philosophers  and  reformers;  and  in  all  his  con- 
ceptions, far  more  than  he  can  realize,  he  is  influenced 
by  the  opinions  of  his  daily  companions.  So  that 
the  revelation  of  truth  and  the  establishment  of  jus- 
tice in  human  affairs  must  depend  largely  upon  the 
power  of  those  who  stand  at  any  time  for  what  is 
true  and  just,  to  control  the  convictions  of  their  fel- 
lows and  so  to  make  them  see  the  best  and  seek  after 
it.  What,  then,  of  the  art  whose  work  it  is  "  to  pro- 
duce beliefs  in  the  minds  of  others  "  ?  Must  it  not 
be  respected  and  cultivated  as  the  embodiment  of 
much  that  is  worthiest  in  human  thought  and  action  ? 


2  Argumentation  and  Debate 

But  argumentation  is  worthy  of  respect  and  study, 
not  simply  because  it  is  one  of  the  noblest  and  most 
truly  creative  of  the  arts,  but  also  because  it  is  so 
nearly  universal  and  indispensable.  We  find  its  uses 
made  manifest  in  nearly  every  branch  of  affairs :  in 
the  legislative  assembly  the  struggles  of  parties  are 
settled  and  policies  worked  out  from  them  by  argu- 
ment ;  in  the  court  room  it  is  argument  which  de- 
cides the  conflicting  claims  of  individuals,  determines 
their  rights  and  privileges,  and  regulates  the  duties 
of  the  citizen  to  the  State;  if  churchmen  meet  to 
formulate  their  beliefs,  they  must  argue  in  order  to 
reconcile  their  varied  ideas  and  tenets  and  harmonize 
them  in  a  single  creed ;  in  the  meeting  room  of  the 
directors  of  a  corporation  it  is  by  argument  that  its 
members  determine  what  is  honorable  and  what  is 
expedient;  and,  wherever  in  the  home  or  on  the 
street  men  differ  about  their  private  concerns,  they 
argue  to  adjust  their  differences  and  find  the  truth. 
Indeed,  wherever  active-minded  men  with  opinions 
meet,  there  is  sure  to  be  argumentation. 

The  nature  of  argumentation,  concerned  as  it  is 
with  the  forces  that  control  the  thoughts  and  acts 
of  men,  discloses  the  first  and  most  elementary  of 
all  its  principles.  There  are  two  more  of  less  dis- 
tinct elements  in  human  beliefs,  viz.,  reason  and  emo- 
tion. Of  these  two  elements  it  is  sufficiently  accurate 
to  say  that  reason  is  the  guiding  power  and  emotion 
the  moving  power.  Consequently,  in  order  to  make 
another  individual  think  or  act  as  we  desire,  we  must, 


Introduction  3 

with  rare  exceptions,  affect  both  these  elements. 
Successful  argumentation,  therefore,  must  almost 
always  be  of  a  twofold  nature :  it  must  contain  an 
appeal  to  the  intellect  and  an  appeal  to  the  will ;  or, 
in  other  words,  it  must  contain  both  conviction  and 
persuasion. 

By  the  force  of  pure  reasoning  a  man  may  make 
others  see  that  this  or  that  statement  is  justified, 
that  this  or  that  argument  is  logical,  or  even  that 
the  whole  idea  he  is  contending  for  is  true;  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  has  made  them  believe 
in  the  propositions  he  advances.  In  order  to  make 
them  fully  accept  his  views  of  the  matter  or  agree 
to  act  as  he  wishes,  the  arguer  must  also  affect  their 
wills  by  appealing  to  their  emotions.  The  weakness 
of  any  argumentative  effort  which  consists  only  of 
conviction,  i.e.  an  appeal  to  the  reason,  is  this  :  that, 
though  the  person  addressed  may  understand,  he  may 
not  really  believe,  because  the  impulses  which  give 
force  to  his  inmost  convictions,  and  which  stimulate 
him  to  action,  may  not  have  been  reached. 

The  purely  emotional  appeal  is  no  more  effective 
than  the  simple  intellectual  demonstration.  It  is  of 
no  advantage  for  a  speaker  or  a  writer  to  stimulate 
the  moving  impulses  of  his  audience  unless  he  can 
hold  them  in  control ;  for  he  may  find  he  has  set  free 
a  force  that  is  as  likely  to  act  to  his  detriment  as  to 
his  benefit.  Then,  too,  he  will  probably  find  that  the 
effect  of  his  appeal  is  but  fleeting  and  unreliable  ;  he 
will  find  his  hearers  are  only  stirred  to  shallow  and 


4  Argumentation  and  Debate 

passing  excitement,  and  that  calm  deliberation  will 
reveal  the  unsubstantial  nature  of  the  argument  and 
so  leave  their  permanent  beliefs  unaffected. 

Consequently,  argumentation,  "whatever  be  its 
form,  proposes  to  itself  two  objects  :  (i)  to  convince 
the  hearer  that  the  contemplated  act  is  his  duty,  or  will 
promote  his  virtue  or  his  happiness ;  and  (2)  to  urge 
upon  him  the  ideas  which  are  embodied  in  the  act 
with  such  force  as  to  arouse  in  him  a  controlling  im- 
pulse to  perform  it."  ^  The  proportion  of  conviction 
and  persuasion  in  any  particular  case  must,  of  course, 
depend  upon  the  circumstances  :  in  a  college  debate 
little  persuasion  is  needed  ;  the  campaign  orator  uses 
but  little  conviction.  Both,  however,  are  necessary 
in  all  effective  argumentation. 

Whatever  the  relative  amounts  or  importance  of 
conviction  and  persuasion,  in  every  piece  of  argu- 
mentative work  there  are  four  processes  indispen- 
sable in  the  execution :  (i)  to  find  out  just  what  you 
want  to  establish ;  (2)  to  gather  the  materials  needed 
for  the  proofs ;  (3)  to  arrange  these  materials ;  (4)  to 
present  them  in  good  rhetorical  or  oratorical  form. 
For  convenience  we  may  name  these  four  processes 
respectively  (I)  Invention,  (II)  Selection,  (III)  Ar- 
rangement, and  (IV)  Presentation. 

I.  Invention  consists  in  determining  upon  those 
ideas  in  the  truth  of  which  the  speaker  or  writer  wishes 
to  make  his  hearer  or  reader  believe.  No  man  can 
hope  to  influence  the  beliefs  of  others  unless  he  first 

1  Robinson,  "  Forensic  Oratory." 


Introduction  5 

has  in  his  own  mind  an  exact  idea  of  the  convictions 
he  wishes  to  inculcate,  and  a  clear  conception  of  the 
points  of  fact  he  must  establish  to  convince  his 
readers  or  hearers,  and  the  kinds  of  emotional  appeal 
he  must  use  to  persuade  them. 

II.  Selection  consists  in  choosing  from  all  the 
sources  of  human  knowledge  those  facts  and  infer- 
ences that  will  serve  to  establish  the  ideas  determined 
upon.  Of  all  the  evidence  and  arguments  that  may 
be  found  on  any  question,  the  arguer  can  use  and 
wishes  to  use  a  comparatively  small  amount,  and  his 
success  must  depend  in  great  degree  upon  his  tact 
and  good  judgment  in  choosing  for  his  use  those 
materials  that  will  appeal  strongly  to  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  those  he  seeks  to  influence. 

III.  Arrangement  consists  in  ordering  these  selected 
materials  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  the  maximum 
effect  upon  the  beliefs  of  the  persons  addressed. 
However  valuable  the  facts  or  appeals  chosen  for  use 
may  be,  their  efficiency  will  depend  upon  the  plan 
in  accordance  with  which  they  are  utilized,  for  they 
cannot  be  presented  clearly  or  forcibly  except  as  they 
are  brought  into  proper  relations  with  each  other  and 
with  the  whole  proof. 

IV.  Presentation  consists  in  putting  the  materials 
into  good  rhetorical  or  oratorical  form.  To  convey 
to  another  the  ideas  invented,  selected,  and  arranged, 
demands  a  many-sided  skill.  In  written  argument  it 
calls  for  the  application  of  the  principles  of  rhetoric ; 
in  spoken  argument  it  calls  for  oratorical  ability ;  in 


6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

debate  it  calls  for  the  peculiar  powers  of  resource 
and  adaptability  which  the  circumstances  of  this  form 
of  controversy  demand. 

In  view,  then,  of  the  nature  and  relations  of  these 
steps  mentioned  above,  the  First  Part  of  the  follow- 
ing text,  which  consists  of  a  discussion  of  the  general 
principles  of  argumentation,  will  be  divided  into  four 
Books,  corresponding  to  these  four  processes.  It 
should,  however,  be  clearly  understood  that  this  divi- 
sion of  the  Part  is  simply  for  convenience.  It  does 
not  mean  that  there  are  any  distinct  lines  of  demar- 
cation between  these  various  processes :  in  any  piece 
of  argumentation  the  progress  is  continuous,  from 
the  first  conception  of  the  ideas  to  be  considered  to 
the  final  presentation,  and  any  separation  of  it  into 
parts  must  be  more  or  less  arbitrary,  and  is  here 
attempted  only  because  it  may  help  in  presenting 
some  of  the  fundamental  principles  with  greater 
clearness. 

The  dividing  of  the  text  into  two  Parts  is  more 
significant.  Debate,  by  which  in  this  connection  we 
mean  oral  controversy  between  two  opposing  sides 
on  some  definite  question  at  some  definite  time,  is  but 
one  of  the  many  forms  of  argumentative  effort ;  but 
the  conditions  surrounding  this  particular  kind  of  dis- 
cussion are  unique,  and  consequently  require  adapta- 
tions of  the  general  principles  of  the  art  and  make 
necessary  the  supplementing  of  these  general  prin- 
ciples with  a  few  special  rules  and  precepts.  Con- 
sequently the   Second   Part,  which  is  devoted  to   a 


Introduction  '*j 

consideration  of  Debate,  though  closely  connected 
with  the  preceding  chapters  and  dependent  upon  the 
principles  therein  enunciated,  is  parallel  with  the 
discussion  in  the  First  Part  rather  than  one  with  it. 

It  must,  however,  not  be  assumed,  because  particu- 
lar consideration  is  given  to  oral  controversy,  that 
this  is  the  most  important  branch  of  the  art.  Quite 
the  contrary  is  true.  In  the  first  place,  to-day  the 
printed  symbol  exerts  quite  as  potent  a  mastery  over 
the  beliefs  of  men  as  does  the  spoken  word.  Then 
again,  reliable*  strength  in  debate  can  only  be  de- 
veloped by  thorough  study  of  the  written  form  of 
presentation ;  for  constant  and  careful  practice  with 
pen  and  ink  is  the  only  sure  source  of  many  of  the 
qualities  of  mind  and  temper  that  are  most  truly 
indispensable  in  a  good  debater.  The  ability  to 
analyze  keenly,  skill  in  making  accurate  definitions, 
the  habit  of  logical  and  forcible  arrangement  of  ideas, 
are  powers  that  can  be  acquired  only  by  the  close 
application  and  self-study  that  can  be  found  to  the 
best  advantage  in  writing.  The  spoken  form  of 
argumentation  calls  for  special  treatment  because 
some  of  its  circumstances  and  attributes  are  distinctive, 
but  the  general  principles  of  the  art  as  a  whole  are 
best  presented  and  studied  in  the  written  forms. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  necessity  for  resolute  practice 
in  writing,  the  student  should  remember  that  in  the 
effort  to  become  master  of  any  art  there  will  always  be 
a  time  when  matters  of  detail  and  the  careful  study  of 
methods  will  seem  irksome.     The  musician  and  the 


8  Argumentation  and  Debate 

painter  find  little  that  is  inspiring  in  those  days  spent 
in  running  the  scales  or  learning  to  hold  the  brush ; 
but  they  must  reaUze  that  these  are  the  rudiments 
from  which  at  length  are  made  the  noble  symphony 
and  the  beautiful  landscape.  So  with  the  beginner 
in  argumentation :  he  is  likely  to  feel  that  many  of 
the  lesser  rules  and  precepts  are  but  fetters  that  only 
chafe  him  and  hold  him  back.  This  suspicion  may 
well  seem  to  be  confirmed  by  his  experiences;  he 
may  see  his  former  spontaneity  and  self-assurance 
gone,  and  find  himself  tripping  and  stumbling  over 
laws  and  borne  down  by  criticism.  But  he  must  be 
patient  and  have  faith  that  at  length  these  trouble- 
some technicalities  will  be  forgotten,  slowly  growing 
into  those  unconscious  habits  of  mind  which  always 
constitute  the  real  strength  of  the  master. 


PROPEm  OF 
DEPmiTMENT  OF  OlIllfMTIC  ART 


PART   I 
ARGUMENTATION 


PfiOPERiyOf 
DEPARTMENT  OF  DRAMATIC  ART 

BOOK   I.     INVENTION 
CHAPTER   I 

THE  PROPOSITION 

Argumentation  differs,  at  the  very  outset,  from 
any  of  the  other  kinds  of  rhetorical  composition  in 
one  important  particular.  In  any  of  the  three  other 
forms,  we  may  have  for  our  subject  a  simple  word 
or  phrase,  denoting  merely  some  general  concept 
existing  in  the  mind,  which  we  wish  to  portray 
for  our  reader.  If  we  wish  to  write  a  narrative, 
we  may  choose  some  such  subject  as  "  The  Battle 
of  Manila,"  or  "An  Ascent  of  the  Jungfrau."  For 
an  exposition  we  might  well  select  such  a  topic  as 
"  The  New  York  Clearing  House,"  or  "  Forest  Fires ; 
Their  Cause  and  Their  Prevention,"  —  these  phrases 
would,  make  excellent  titles  for  compositions  of  this 
nature ;  but  in  argumentation  such  terms  would  be 
wholly  valueless. 

To  take  an  example :  suppose  a  student  desiring 
to  write  an  expository  discourse  should  determine  on 
the  title,  "  Bimetallism."  This  would  be  a  worthy  sub- 
ject ;  he  could,  in  his  composition,  treat  of  the  history 
of  the  movement  in  favor  of  this  plan,  explain  the 
economic  principles  involved,  portray  the  operation  of 
these  principles  and  their  effect  upon  political  and 

II 


12  Argumentation  and  Debate 

industrial  conditions,  and  so  forth,  thus  making  of  the 
whole  an  exposition  of  the  nature  and  workings  of 
bimetallism.  But  as  the  subject  of  an  argumentative 
effort  this  term  would  be  useless,  for  it  does  not 
suggest  anything  definite  to  be  proved  or  disproved ; 
it  does  not  state  any  belief  which  the  writer  wishes 
his  reader  to  accept.  The  author  might  discuss  any 
one  of  a  dozen  ideas  or  beliefs ;  he  might  argue  that 
the  United  States  should  adopt  a  bimetallic  standard 
at  the  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one ;  that  the  bimetallic 
standard  was  a  benefit  to  industrial  conditions  in 
Mexico ;  that  international  bimetallism  is  impracti- 
cable. If  this  argument  took  the  form  of  a  discus- 
sion between  two  opposing  sides,  the  opponents  would 
probably  turn  out  to  be  arguing  two  entirely  different 
questions,  never  meeting  each  other  on  any  one 
definite  issue.  The  result  might  be  an  interesting 
discussion,  but  it  would  not  be  a  debate. 

The  reason  is  obvious  why  such  a  phrase  as  that 
suggested  is  not  adapted  to  argumentation.  Argu- 
mentation deals  with  ""  beliefs."  But  a  belief  or  an 
opinion  cannot  be  accurately  expressed  in  a  word  or 
a  phrase.  It  demands  a  complete  statement,  a  full 
sentence.  To  return  to  our  illustration,  in  order  to 
express  any  definite  belief  about  "  bimetalHsm,"  we 
must  expand  this  word  into  a  complete  sentence,  such 
as :  The  adoption  of  the  bimetallic  standard  in  the 
ratio  of  sixteen  to  one  would  be  detrimental  to  Ameri- 
can industry.  With  the  subject  in  such  form  as  this, 
the  writer  has  a  single  idea  to  establish  or  destroy, 


The  Proposition  13 

the  reader  has  a  single  definite  belief  to  accept  or 
reject,  and  if  two  opposing  parties  take  up  this  sub- 
ject they  must  meet  on  a  distinct  and  unavoidable 
issue,  and  one  must  overthrow  the  other. 

Perhaps  the  difference  explained  above,  between 
the  kind  of  subject  required  in  argumentation  and 
the  kind  required  in  the  other  forms  of  composition, 
may  be  made  clearer  by  adopting  the  distinction, 
made  by  the  older  writers  in  rhetoric,  between  a 
term  and  a  proposition.  A  term  is  any  word,  or 
phrase,  or  combination  of  words  other  than  a  sen- 
tence. A  proposition  we  may  define  as  a  statement 
that  something  is  or  is  not.  To  illustrate  :  in  the  case 
cited  above,  "  bimetallism,"  "  international  bimetal- 
lism," "  bimetalhsm  at  the  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one," 
are  all  terms ;  *'  The  adoption  of  the  bimetallic  stand- 
ard would  be  detrimental  to  American  industry "  is 
a  proposition.  Bearing  this  distinction  in  mind,  we 
may  say  that  a  term  may  be  properly  used  as  the 
subject  of  any  other  form  of  composition,  but  in 
argumentation  a  proposition  is  necessary. 

This  necessity  of  having  a  proposition  is  not  always 
realized.  In  a  certain  historical  club  there  was  as- 
signed as  the  topic  of  an  evening's  debate,  "  William 
Pitt's  Place  in  English  History."  A  few  of  the 
disputants  spoke  of  his  parliamentary  abilities,  of  his 
power  as  an  orator  and  political  leader ;  others  gave 
their  attention  to  a  consideration  of  his  statesman- 
ship, commending  his  foreign  policy  or  criticising 
his  selfishness   and   unscrupulousness ;    others  com- 


14  Argumentation  mid  Debate 

merited  on  his  personality  and  his  private  life ;  and 
so  on,  each  speaker  looking  at  the  subject  from  his 
own  point  of  view,  and  no  one  endeavoring  to  prove 
or  disprove  any  particular  proposition.  The  dis- 
cussion was  in  many  ways  interesting,  but  as  a 
debate  the  evening's  work  was  a  failure ;  no  one  had 
been  induced  to  accept  any  definite  belief  about  the 
subject,  and  no  conclusion  had  been  established. 
In  order  to  turn  the  discussion  into  a  debate  which 
should  have  some  certain  result,  the  subject  should 
have  taken  some  such  form  as :  Resolved,  that  Will- 
iam Pitt  was  the  greatest  parliamentary  leader  of  the 
eighteenth  century;  or,  William  Pitt's  conduct  of 
Irish  affairs  was  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
Irish  people.  The  disputants  made  the  mistake  of 
trying  to  argue  a  term. 

In  contrast  with  the  method  of  this  historical  club, 
call  to  mind  the  court  of  law.  Here  it  is  necessary 
that  the  deliberations  accomplish  definite  results. 
There  must  be  no  waste  of  time  or  energy,  and  the 
end  of  it  all  must  be  a  final  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion presented  for  consideration.  With  these  purposes 
in  mind,  the  court  of  law  demands  that  whenever  any 
question  is  brought  before  it,  "  pleadings  "  be  made 
and  that  these  pleadings  "  shall  set  forth  with  cer- 
tainty and  with  truth  the  matters  of  fact  or  of  law, 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  which  must  be  decided  to 
decide  the  case."  In  other  words,  the  court  demands 
that  any  man  who  would  argue  before  it  must,  before 
he  begins  his  demonstration,  make  a  clear  and  un- 


TJie  Proposition  15 

mistakable    proposition,   stating   the    things  that   he 
intends  to  prove  true  or  false. 

The  making  of  a  proposition  is  of  great  advantage 
to  the  reader  or  hearer  in  enabling  him  to  understand 
the  discussion  and  get  some  real  fruit  from  it.  But 
it  is  no  less  an  advantage  to  the  writer  or  speaker. 
In  the  first  place,  if  he  does  not  know  the  exact  propo- 
sition in  issue,  he  is  almost  sure  to  waste  time  and. 
effort  in  arguing  about  matters  that  are  wholly  out- 
side the  real  question  and  in  proving  things  that 
are  "•  beside  the  point."  Then  again,  he  must  know 
the  proposition  in  order  to  understand  the  position 
taken  by  his  opponent,  and  so  be  enabled  to  refute 
him.  The  proposition  is  simply  a  statement  of  the 
things  the  writer  or  speaker  must  establish  or  destroy, 
and  he  cannot  expect  to  be  successful,  either  in  posi- 
tive proof  or  in  refutation,  unless  he  understands  just 
what  is  the  work  necessary  for  him  to  do. 

The  proposition  may  be  expressed  or  not  as  cir- 
cumstances seem  to  require.  In  a  deliberative 
assembly,  such  as  the  House  of  Representatives,  it 
would  be  found  expressed  in  the  form  of  some  bill 
or  resolution.  In  the  court  of  law  it  is  put  into  the 
shape  of  pleadings,  as  explained  above.  In  an  inter- 
collegiate debate  it  would  take  the  guise  of  a  question 
mutually  agreed  upon  beforehand.  Indeed,  it  should 
always  be  expressed  unless  there  is  some  particular 
reason  for  not  doing  so.  The  formulating  of  it 
always  makes  the  proof  clearer  to  the  reader  or  the 
audience,  and  so  makes  the  proof   of  more   lasting 


1 6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

impression  upon  their  minds.  To  state  the  proposi- 
tion in  words  is  also  often  an  effective  method  of  ex- 
posing the  weakness  or  sophistry  of  an  opponent  who 
is  "  begging  the  question,"  arguing  "  beside  the  point," 
or  evading  the  issue.  Sometimes  circumstances  ren- 
der such  a  statement  undesirable  or  impossible.  A 
speaker  in  a  political  campaign,  or  a  man  who 
happens  to  be  drawn  into  some  newspaper  con- 
troversy, might  well  find  it  awkward  to  put  his  case 
into  the  form  of  a  cut-and-dried  statement.  But,  even 
then,  and  indeed  under  all  circumstances  whatever, 
it  is  advisable  to  have  clearly  in  mind  a  definitely 
formulated  proposition. 

In  brief,  then  :  As  the  first  step  in  any  work  of 
argumentation,  always  formulate  a  proposition.  A 
proposition  is  a  statement  that  something  is  or  is  not. 

Methods  of  formulating  the  Proposition 

Now  that  we  have  seen  the  necessity  of  having  a 
proposition  either  in  the  mind  or  on  paper,  the  ques- 
tion arises :  How  can  we  best  find  and  formulate  this 
proposition .''  The  formulating  of  the  proposition  is 
not  always  an  easy  matter.  To  begin  with,  it  is  not 
always  easy  to  determine  just  what  is  the  question 
really  in  issue ;  it  may  be  obscured  by  the  words  of  the 
discussion ;  it  may  become  confused  with  other  kin- 
dred but  different  questions  ;  it  may  be  separated  with 
difficulty  from  the  general  problem  that  embraces  it. 
Then  again  it  is  often  difficult  to  put  the  question  into 
words  after  it   is   found.     Looseness   in   expression, 


The  Proposition  1 7 

ambiguity,  the  failure  to  know  the  true  acceptations 
of  the  words  in  the  proposition,  are  mistakes  fruitful 
in  possibilities  of  serious  error.  The  writer  must 
know  how  to  find  out  what  it  is  he  wants  to  prove 
and  how  to  express  himself  in  such  a  way  that  there 
can  be  no  question  as  to  his  exact  meaning. 

The  process  of  formulating  the  proposition  natu- 
rally divides  itself  into  three  parts :  (^)  Finding  out 
what  is  the  real  question  at  issue,  i.e.  the  facts  and 
ideas,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  which  must  be  decided  to 
decide  the  question.  {B)  Formulating  the  question  in 
words.  After  the  facts  in  issue  have  been  deter- 
mined on,  they  must  be  expressed  in  the  form  of  a 
complete  statement.  Then  the  statement  must  be 
tested  by  a  definition  of  its  terms  to  find  out  just 
what  the  statement  means  as  it  stands.  iC)  Compar- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  statement  so  expressed  with 
the  meaning  of  the  real  question  in  issue,  i.e.  com- 
paring the  results  of  the  first  and  second  processes. 
If  the  statement  thus  formulated  does  not  express 
just  what  is  intended,  it  must  be  modified  until  it  does. 
Whatever  the  circumstances,  these  three  steps,  though 
they  are  usually  so  intermingled  as  not  to  seem  like 
separate  operations,  must  always  be  taken  in  order  to 
find  the  true  proposition. 

A.  Finding  out  what  is  the  question  really  in  dis- 
cussion, i.e.  the  facts  or  ideas  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
which  must  be  decided  to  decide  the  question. 

The  student  starting  out  in  his  search  after  the 
proposition  will  usually  find  that  it  exists  originally 


1 8  Argumejitation  and  Debate 

in  his  mind  in  the  shape  of  some  problem  of  a  general 
nature.  This  problem,  we  have  already  seen,  is  of 
too  vague  and  indefinite  a  character  to  be  a  fit  topic 
for  an  argumentative  effort.  In  order  to  develop 
from  it  a  suitable  proposition,  it  must  be  narrowed 
down  and  restricted  within  the  bounds  of  some  con- 
crete and  particular  issue.  The  work,  then,  of  deter- 
mining on  the  exact  question  to  be  discussed  is 
largely  the  work  of  selecting  out  of  a  broad  and 
general  problem  some  single,  concrete,  and  limited 
issue. 

In  performing  the  work  of  this  first  step  there  is  no 
exact  rule  or  method  for  all  cases.  Sometimes  it  may 
be  necessary  for  the  disputant-to-be  to  examine  the 
contents  of  his  own  mind.  More  often  it  becomes 
desirable  to  do  a  considerable  amount  of  preliminary 
reading  and  investigation  in  connection  with  the 
search.  But,  whatever  the  circumstances,  the  "nar- 
rowing down  "  process  is  essentially  the  same,  and 
there  are  certain  steps  that  are  always  serviceable. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  generally  helpful  to  consider 
the  conditions  under  which  the  question  arose.  If 
the  writer  will  understand  just  how  he  came  to  be 
interested  in  the  problem  he  has  in  his  mind,  he  will 
be  able  to  see  more  clearly  just  what  is  the  phase  of 
it  with  which  he  is  most  concerned  and  which  he 
desires  to  discuss  ;  or,  if  he  is  investigating  the  prob- 
lem by  the  reading  of  books  or  current  magazines, 
the  matters  really  in  issue  will  take  more  definite 
form  in   proportion  as   he  understands   the   circum- 


The  Proposition  19 

stances  that  generated  them  and  brought  them  into 
discussion.  Secondly,  after  gaining  a  comprehension 
of  the  origin  of  the  question,  it  remains  for  him  to 
analyze^  according  to  his  own  natural  methods,  the 
ideas  embraced  within  the  general  problem  as  it  exists 
in  his  own  mind  or  in  the  minds  of  others,  in  this  way 
selecting  the  parts  he  wishes  to  consider  and  classify- 
ing them  in  such  a  manner  that  the  result  shall  be  a 
single,  distinct,  and  concrete  question. 

To  take  an  example :  Let  us  suppose  that  a  stu- 
dent in  want  of  a  debatable  proposition  finds  himself 
interested  in  "the  labor  problem."  He  cannot  argue 
**the  labor  problem  "  ;  it  is  merely  a  term,  and  is  too 
vague  and  indefinite  an  idea.  He  must  ''narrow  it 
down."  To  do  this,  he  first  considers  the  origin  of 
the  question ;  he  finds,  perhaps,  that  his  interest  has 
been  aroused  by  some  magazine  article  discussing 
compulsory  arbitration  as  a  cure  for  strikes,  or  by 
some  comment  among  his  friends  on  the  incorpora- 
tion of  labor  unions.  Having  gone  thus  far,  it  re- 
mains for  him  to  analyze  his  ideas  and  so  reduce  the 
question  still  farther.  Is  it  in  the  United  States 
that  he  thinks  labor  unions  should  be  incorporated  .•* 
Further,  does  he  believe  they  ought  to  be  incor- 
porated under  State  laws  or  under  Federal  laws } 
Does  he  want  to  consider  only  the  incorporation  of 
the  unions,  or  does  he  wish  to  discuss  the  kindred 
issue  of  the  desirability  of  a  compulsory  arbitration 
law }  And  so  he  goes  on,  interrogating  his  own 
mind,  till  perhaps  he  phrases  his  question  as  follows : 


20  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Resolved,  that  in  the  United  States  labor  unions 
should  be  compelled  to  incorporate  under  Federal 
laws. 

If  this  work  of  analysis  is  done  properly,  the  result 
is  a  proposition.  But  this  is  only  the  first  step ; 
the  question  still  remains :  Is  this  the  proposition  t 
Does  it  contain  the  ideas  the  student  has  in  mind  .'* 
The  statement  thus  made  must  be  tested  to  see  if  it 
expresses  just  what  the  writer  intends. 

This  testing  of  the  proposition  as  first  formulated 
is  very  important.  A  carelessly  constructed  sentence 
may  result  in  the  making  of  a  proposition  which  is 
very  far  from  the  embodiment  of  the  writer's  ideas. 
And  this  carelessness  may  have  very  serious  results. 
In  an  intercollegiate  debate,  a  false  grammatical  con- 
struction or  the  choice  of  a  wrong  word  may  mean 
the  difference  between  victory  and  defeat.  To  avoid 
these  dangers,  care  must  be  taken  that  each  word  of 
the  statement,  and  the  statement  as  a  whole,  shall  be 
capable  of  but  one  interpretation. 

The  failure  to  understand  the  exact  meaning  of  a 
given  proposition  is  often  evidenced  in  the  class 
room.  Take,  for  illustration,  a  discussion  of  the 
question  :  Resolved,  that  labor  unions  in  the  United 
States  are  detrimental  to  the  industrial  interests  of 
the  country.  In  a  debate  on  this  proposition,  the 
affirmative  admitted  that  the  principle  of  the  or- 
ganization of  labor  was  right,  and  that  labor  unions 
ought  to  exist  in  some  form  ;  "  but,"  they  said,  "  labor 
unions   to-day  are   detrimental   because   they  inflict 


The  Proposition  21 

certain  injuries  on  the  consumer  and  the  employer, 
by  such  means  as  strikes,  the  limitation  of  output, 
the  uniform  wage  scale,"  etc.  The  negative  said,  in 
substance,  "We  admit  that  labor  unions  declare 
strikes,  and  that  strikes  are  bad ;  we  admit  that  the 
unions  sometimes  limit  output ;  but  we  contend  that 
on  the  whole  the  unions  are  not  detrimental,  because 
the  industrial  conditions  would  become  worse  if  they 
did  not  exist  at  all."  Clearly  the  two  sides  did  not 
meet  at  all  in  the  discussion.  They  were  arguing 
two  different  questions.  The  affirmative  was  argu- 
ing whether  or  not  the  policies  and  principles  of  the 
unions  at  that  time  were  such  as  to  do  greater  injury 
than  good  to  industry ;  the  negative  was  arguing  the 
question  whether  or  not  labor  ought  to  be  organized 
at  all.  The  confusion  arose  from  a  failure  to  find 
out  what  the  proposition  really  meant.  It  meant 
either  the  one  thing  or  the  other,  but,  in  the  same 
debate,  it  could  not  mean  both.  The  discussion 
could  not  bring  about  any  result  till  it  had  been 
settled  what  was  the  true  interpretation  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  disputants  had  found  a  proposition,  but 
not  the  proposition. 

B,  Clearly,  then,  the  next  step  is  that  of  testing 
the  statement  that  has  been  formulated,  to  find  out 
just  what  it  means  as  it  stands.  Each  word  that  may 
be  at  all  ambiguous  must  be  examined  and  its  true 
intent  discovered,  and  the  grammatical  structure  of 
the  sentence  and  the  relation  of  the  words  to  each 
other  must  be  investigated,  in  order  to  be  sure  of  the 


22  Argumentation  aitd  Debate 

rightful  interpretation  to  be  put  upon  the  statement 
as  a  whole.  This  work  of  testing  the  meaning  of  the 
proposition  may  be  called  definition. 

The  word  "definition"  suggests  a  simple  and  easy 
task.  "  Look  in  Webster  or  the  Standard  Dictionary, 
and  the  work  is  done."  But  this  is  a  mistake. 
Sometimes  the  statement  is  so  simple  that  very  little 
effort  is  necessary  to  be  sure  of  its  meaning.  But 
often  to  test  properly  a  proposition  is  a  long  and 
complicated  process. 

To  take  an  example :  Suppose  a  student  is  trying 
to  prepare  some  question  for  an  intercollegiate 
debate.  He  finds  himself  vaguely  interested  in  some 
of  the  problems  of  the  Far  East,  perhaps  in  the  so- 
called  "Chinese  Question."  By  a  careful  scrutiny  of 
his  own  ideas,  or  by  reading  in  books  and  magazines, 
he  finds  that  it  is  the  political  aspect  of  the  problem 
that  most  interests  him.  He  further  analyzes  the 
political  conditions  in  the  Far  East  and  selects  what 
seem  to  him  the  fundamental  facts  in  the  situation 
and  the  most  vital  issues  that  have  arisen  from  them. 
He  soon  finds  that  there  are  two  really  important 
questions  embraced  within  this  Chinese  problem  :  the 
first  is  the  question  as  to  the  possibility  or  the  desir- 
ability of  preserving  China's  territorial  integrity ;  the 
second,  the  question  as  to  what  rights  and  privileges 
China  should  be  allowed  to  hold  as  a  nation  among 
the  nations,  the  question  as  to  whether  her  powers  as 
a  sovereign  nation  should  be  in  any  way  destroyed  or 
curtailed.     The  student  finally  decides  that  it  is  the 


The  Proposition  23 

latter  of  these  two  issues  in  which  he  is  most  inter- 
ested ;  the  question  he  wants  to  discuss  is  the  question 
whether  or  not  China  shall  be  allowed  to  conduct  all 
her  internal  affairs  with  the  perfect  freedom  of  a 
sovereign  state,  without  interference  from  other 
states.  He  finds  that  the  writers  whom  he  has  been 
reading  have  frequently  used,  in  this  connection,  the 
word  *'  independence,"  so  he  adopts  the  word  and 
makes  the  following  statement :  Resolved,  that  the 
independence  of  the  Chinese  Empire  should  be  pre- 
served. He  has  taken  the  first  necessary  step  ;  he 
has  reduced  the  general  problem  to  a  specific  question 
and  has  put  it  into  the  shape  of  a  proposition.  But 
is  this  statement  the  proposition  .?  Does  it  accurately 
express  what  he  intends  ?  Clearly  the  word  that  may 
be  ambiguous  is  the  word  "independence."  He 
starts  out  to  define  that  word.  He  first  consults 
Webster's  Dictionary,  and  he  finds  there  this  defini- 
tion :  "  Exemption  from  reliance  on  others  or  control 
by  them."  This  definition  seems  to  fit  his  idea;  but 
if  he  is  wise  he  will  not  accept  it.  The  definition  is 
valueless.  The  dictionary  merely  gives  the  acceptation 
of  the  word  in  its  general  usage.  This  question  of 
Chinese  independence  is  a  question  of  international 
relations,  and  the  term  "  independence  "  is  a  technical 
term  in  the  code  of  the  law  of  nations.  "  Indepen- 
dence," then,  must  have  the  special  meaning  given  it 
in  international  law. 

The  student  must  seek  this  special  meaning.     He 
may  look  in  some  larger  dictionary,  which  will  ex- 


24  Argumentation  and  Debate 

plain  the  term  in  its  technical  interpretation;  if  he 
is  wise,  he  will  directly  consult  the  international  law 
authorities  themselves.  In  Lawrence's  "  Principles  of 
International  Law,"  p.  iii,  he  would  find  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Independence  may  be  defined  as  the  right  of  a 
state  to  manage  all  its  affairs,  whether  external  or 
internal,  without  interference  from  other  states,  as 
long  as  it  respects  the  corresponding  right  possessed 
by  each  fully  sovereign  member  of  the  family  of 
nations." 

This  would  surely  seem  to  be  a  final  definition. 
But  if  the  student  should  go  into  a  debate  with  that 
as  his  understanding  of  the  word,  he  would  probably 
meet  with  an  unpleasant  surprise.  If  he  should  carry 
his  investigation  farther,  he  would  find  that  there  are 
exceptions  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  definition, 
exceptions  that  are  really  a  part  of  the  rule  of  law. 
He  will  find  that  one  nation  or  a  group  of  nations 
may  directly  interfere  in  the  external  or  internal 
affairs  of  another  nation  without  violating  that 
nation's  rights  of  independence,  provided  the  inter- 
vening nations  are  interfering  in  order  to  protect 
their  own  rights  of  sovereignty.  He  would  find 
further  that  the  theory  of  independence  permits  a 
nation,  even  when  its  own  sovereign  rights  are  not 
endangered,  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  another 
nation  and  restrict  the  exercise  of  some  of  its  natural 
rights  of  sovereignty,  provided  the  restrictions 
imposed  are  of  a  certain  limited  nature  as  to  their 
extent    and    duration.       These    exceptions    are    as 


The  Proposition  25 

important  as  the  so-called  "  definition "  itself.  In 
fact,  the  debate,  if  well  argued,  would  probably  turn 
on  the  truth  of  these  exceptions  and  their  application 
to  the  question. 

An  understanding  of  the  true  meaning  of  this 
word  "independence"  could  only  be  found  by  this 
painstaking  investigation.  No  less  careful  or  less 
thorough  definition  could  have  disclosed  the  import 
of  the  word ;  and  this  accurate  knowledge  was  indis- 
pensable in  order  to  make  the  proposition  of  any  real 
value. 

In  the  case  of  nearly  every  such  definition,  the 
same  method  has  to  be  pursued.  First,  find  its  ordi- 
nary acceptation.  Second,  determine  whether  it  may 
have  any  meaning  that  is  technical  or  in  any  way 
peculiar.  If  it  does  have  such  a  peculiar  meaning, 
the  definition  must  be  sought  in  the  exposition  of 
some  writer  who  will  explain  this  special  interpreta- 
tion. If  it  is  a  term  in  science,  go  to  the  specialist 
in  that  science ;  if  a  political  phrase,  go  to  the  states- 
man or  historian;  if  a  legal  term,  go  to  the  jurist. 
Third,  even  after  the  definition  is  obtained  from  a 
good  authority,  consider  the  questions  :  Are  the  terms 
of  this  definition  that  I  have  found  exact }  Are  there 
any  exceptions  to  the  general  statement.-*  The  ex- 
ceptions sometimes  destroy  the  rule. 

These,  then,  are  the  first  two  processes  in  formu- 
lating the  proposition  :  A,  finding  out  just  what  the 
ideas  are  that  make  up  the  question,  and  stating 
these  ideas  as  accurately  as  possible ;  and  By  testing 


26  Argumentation  and  Debate 

this  statement  by  a  definition  of  its  terms  in  such  a 
way  as  to  find  out  just  what  the  proposition  means 
as  it  stands,  to  see  if  it  is  the  true  expression  of 
these  ideas. 

C.  For  the  third  and  last  step,  it  only  remains  to 
compare  the  results  of  the  first  two  processes.  If 
the  work  of  definition  shows  the  statement  as  origi- 
nally formulated  to  be  inaccurate  or  ambiguous,  if  it 
is  found  that  the  tentative  proposition  does  not  ex- 
press the  ideas  that  the  author  intended  it  to  express, 
then  the  statement  must  be  changed  till  it  finally 
does  put  into  words,  clearly  and  accurately,  the  real 
question. 

In  choosing  a  proposition  there  is  one  precaution 
that  needs  especially  to  be  observed :  the  error  must 
be  avoided  of  combining  two  separate  ideas  in  a 
single  proposition ;  two  questions,  closely  akin  to 
one  another  but  really  distinct  from  each  other,  may 
easily  become  confused  and  be  carelessly  joined 
together  in  a  single  statement.  For  example,  stu- 
dents often  devise  such  propositions  as.  Resolved^ 
that  a  high  protective  tariff  is  hostile  to  the  economic 
interests  of  the  United  States,  and  reciprocal  trade 
relations  should  be  established  with  the  Dominion  of 
Canada;  or.  Resolved,  that  labor  unions  are  detri- 
mental to  industry,  and  they  should  be  compelled  to 
incorporate.  Now  in  each  of  these  propositions 
there  are  two  problems  presented ;  these  problems 
are  similar  in  the  nature  of  the  ideas  contained  in 
them,  but  the  issues  to  be  determined  are  very  differ- 


The  Proposition       .  27 

ent.  The  proofs  necessary  to  establish  the  fact  that 
labor  unions  are  detrimental  to  industry  are  not  at  all 
the  same  proofs  required  to  show  that  they  should 
be  compelled  to  incorporate ;  so  that  the  attempt  to 
combine  in  one  demonstration  what  are  really  two 
distinct  proofs  must  result  in  confusion.  We  may 
handle  each  of  these  questions  separately,  but  we 
cannot  hope  to  treat  them  successfully  at  the  same 
time.  Consequently,  in  formulating  our  ideas,  we 
must  be  sure  not  only  to  have  the  form  of  a  proposi- 
tion, but  to  have  a  single  proposition. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  ISSUES 

The  issues  are  the  ideas  or  matters  of  fact  upon 
the  estabhshment  of  which  depends  the  estabUsh- 
ment  of  the  proposition. 

We  have  seen,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that,  in 
order  to  have  intelhgent  argumentation,  we  must  first 
have  a  proposition.  The  formulating  of  the  proposi- 
tion insures  that  we  have  one  single  question  that 
can  be  argued  directly  and  so  brought  to  a  definite 
conclusion.  This  proposition  thus  makes  clear  the 
general  position  which  the  disputant  must  maintain. 

But  the  disputant  is  not  yet  ready  to  select  the 
evidence  or  the  arguments  with  which  to  support  his 
proof.  He  has  merely  found  the  field  of  battle. 
Before  he  can  open  the  fight,  or  even  arrange  his 
forces,  he  must  examine  the  ground  he  has  chosen, 
find  out  its  points  of  vantage  and  of  weakness ;  he 
must  decide  just  where  to  make  his  intrenchments  and 
what  plan  of  operations  to  adopt.  The  proposition 
discloses  the  task  that  must  in  the  end  be  accom- 
plished, but  it  does  not  show  what  are  the  steps  nec- 
essary in  the  accomplishment,  or  just  what  method 
may  be  most  effective. 

28 


The  Issues  29 

The  proposition  gives  a  single  question  for  discus- 
sion ;  but  even  in  any  such  single  question  there  are 
innumerable  arguments  and  great  masses  of  evidence 
that  may  be  brought  forward.  All  these  arguments 
and  all  this  evidence  cannot  be  used  ;  it  is  not  all  of 
equal  value ;  some  of  it  will  have  such  a  direct  and 
obvious  bearing  on  the  question  that  it  must  have 
great  significance ;  but  much  of  it  will  have  such 
an  indefinite  and  remote  bearing  that  to  use  it 
at  all  would  be  a  waste  of  time.  Clearly,  then, 
the  next  thing  for  the  disputant  to  do  is  to  get 
some  standards  by  reference  to  which  he  can  de- 
termine the  value  of  these  materials.  In  order 
to  know  what  proofs  to  use,  he  must  first  find  out 
just  what  are  the  points  he  needs  to  establish  by 
the  proofs. 

In  any  question,  among  the  endless  array  of  facts 
and  arguments,  there  are  always  certain  facts  that 
are  critical.  These  few  facts  are  so  vital  that  the 
whole  question  must  hinge  on  them.  A  century  and 
a  half  ago,  John  Ward,  in  his  "  System  of  Oratory," 
said :  "  But  in  all  disputes  it  is  of  the  greatest  conse- 
quence to  observe  where  the  stress  of  the  contro- 
versy lies.  For,  without  attending  to  this,  pei^sons 
may  cavil  about  different  matters,  without  under- 
standing each  other  or  deciding  anything."  In  any 
discussion  the  "  stress  of  the  controversy  "  inevitably 
falls  upon  the  proving  or  disproving  of  a  few  points, 
which  are  the  centre  and  soul  of  the  question ; 
whichever   side   wins    in    the    struggle    over    these 


30  Argumentation  and  Debate 

points  wins  the  whole  contest.  These  points  are 
always  the  same  in  the  same  question  :  they  exist 
independently  of  the  wills  of  the  disputants ;  they 
are  to  be  discovered^  not  invented.  These  facts  are 
the  issues. 

To  use  the  terms  employed  by  Professor  Robinson 
in  his  book  on  "  Forensic  Oratory,"  there  are  both 
"  primary  issues  "  and  "  subordinate  issues."  "  Every 
cause,  civil  or  criminal,  consists  of  one  or  more  prop- 
ositions either  of  fact  or  of  law,  affirmed  upon  the 
one  side  and  denied  upon  the  other.  .  .  .  Each  of 
these  primary  issues  may  in  its  turn  contain  other 
issues  either  simple  or  complex,  whose  determination 
is  essential  to  the  determination  of  the  issues  which 
include  them.  .  .  .  Thus  in  the  charge  of  burglary, 
the  defendant  may  deny  the  breaking,  on  the  ground 
that  the  door  by  which  he  entered  was  ajar."  ^ 
These  primary  and  secondary  issues  are  found  in  all 
argumentation.  The  use  of  them  in  the  law  courts  dif- 
fers slightly  from  their  use  in  argumentation  elsewhere 
in  this :  in  a  court  the  primary  issues  are  declared  and 
set  forth  in  the  pleadings,  before  the  real  argument 
begins  ;  whereas  in  ordinary  argumentation  the  find- 
ing and  explaining  of  these  primary  issues  is  part  of 
the  proof  itself.  But  under  all  circumstances  these 
issues  and  the  method  of  finding  them  are  essentially 
the  same. 

The  primary  issues  in  both  cases  must  be  sought 
first.      The  outcome  of  the  argument  may  depend 

1  Robinson,  "  Forensic  Oratory,"  p.  62. 


The  Issues  31 

almost  entirely  on  the  establishment  of  some  one  or 
more  of  the  subordinate  issues ;  as,  in  the  instance 
cited  from  Professor  Robinson,  the  question  of  the 
guilt  of  a  man  charged  with  breaking  and  entering 
hangs  on  the  seemingly  small  fact  that  the  door  was 
slightly  ajar.  "  A  thing  insignificant  in  itself  may 
be  very  significant  in  its  consequences."  But  the 
significance  of  any  such  subordinate  issue  is  derived 
from  the  fact  that  it  affirms  or  denies  one  of  the 
primary  issues,  so  that  its  bearing  and  importance 
cannot  be  understood  until  one  knows  the  primary 
issue  which  it  serves  to  establish.  The  primary 
issues,  then,  must  be  found  first. 

Hereafter,  in  this  book,  the  term  "  the  issues  "  will 
be  used  to  designate  the  primary  issues.  When  any 
other  issue  is  referred  to,  it  will  be  specifically  called 
a  "subordinate  issue." 

The  necessity  of  knowing  the  issues  is  obvious. 
Without  an  understanding  of  them  the  proposition  is 
nothing  more  than  a  name.  Argument  on  any  ques- 
tion implies  some  difference  of  opinion ;  it  means 
that  there  are  certain  ideas  affirmed  by  one  side  and 
denied  by  the  other.  The  proposition  is  merely 
an  expression  of  this  clash  of  opinion,  and  an  un- 
derstanding of  its  meaning  depends  entirely  upon 
a  comprehension  of  the  points  of  conflict.  If  the 
writer  would  prove  his  proposition,  he  must  prove 
these  critical  points.  Moreover,  the  value  of  his  ma- 
terials depends  upon  their  relation  to  these  points : 
any  evidence  that  gives  a  direct  and  substantial  sup- 


32  Argumentation  and  Debate 

port  to  these  vital  facts  is  valuable ;  whatever  does 
not  bear  directly  on  these  facts  is,  at  best,  of  secondary 
importance. 

If  a  disputant  makes  a  mistake  in  finding  these 
critical  points  on  which  the  discussion  must  turn, 
he  may  well  spend  his  time  in  proving  some  fact 
that  will  not  help  him  after  it  is  proved.  This  dan- 
ger is  realized  and  guarded  against  in  the  courts  of 
law.  They  demand  that  the  issues  shall  be  clearly 
stated  in  the  beginning,  and  that  every  piece  of  evi- 
dence, whether  of  fact  or  of  law,  shall  have  a  direct 
and  evident  bearing  on  some  one  of  these  issues,  any- 
thing that  cannot  conform  to  this  test  being  declared 
irrelevant  and  being  excluded  from  consideration. 
Then  again,  a  speaker  or  writer  who  does  not  know 
the  issues  will  probably  confuse  his  readers  or  hearers 
by  giving  them  a  false,  distorted  view  of  his  case.  If 
a  disputant  does  not  comprehend  just  what  are  the 
few  vital  points  of  his  case,  around  which  all  the 
lesser  tacts  must  be  grouped,  his  proof  will  almost 
certainly  lack  the  unity  and  coherence  that  are  in- 
dispensable for  clearness  and  force  in  presentation. 
The  issues  serve  to  gather  and  bind  together  the 
materials  of  the  proof,  making  them  a  single,  mani- 
fest whole. 

The  Method  of  finding  the  Issues 

(i)  In  any  question  there  are  a  great  many  facts 
that  clearly  cannot  be  the  critical  points  that  make 
up  the  issues.     There  are  many  ideas  and  facts  that 


The  Issues  33 

are  commonly  associated  with  the  proposition  which 
do  not  really  have  any  important  bearing  on  it. 
These  should  be  carefully  put  aside  at  the  outset. 
Then  again,  there  are  many  other  facts  which  are 
properly  embraced  within  the  meaning  of  the  ques- 
tion which  may  be  very  valuable  as  evidence  to 
prove  other  facts,  but  which  manifestly  are  not 
important  in  themselves.  For  illustration,  in  a 
civil  suit  for  damages  in  a  court  of  law  the  hon- 
esty or  the  intelligence  of  a  witness  might,  under 
some  circumstances,  become  very  significant,  the  es- 
tablishment of  some  vital  point  depending  upon  his 
reliability.  Yet  the  character  of  this  witness  would 
not  be  mentioned  in  the  pleadings  as  one  of  the 
issues,  for  his  credibility  is  not  important  in  itself, 
but  only  because  of  its  effect  upon  some  other 
and  larger  point  in  the  case.  In  seeking  the 
issues,  the  first  step  should  be  to  exclude  such 
facts  as  these,  which  are  manifestly  of  only  secondary 
importance. 

The  following,  taken  from  Mr.  Jeremiah  S.  Black's 
speech  "  In  Defence  of  the  Right  of  Trial  by  Jury," 
illustrates  the  effective  use  of  this  method.  Here 
the  speaker  found  his  issues  by  the  exclusion  of 
irrelevant  matter. 

"  The  case  before  you  presents  but  a  single  point  and 
that  an  exceedingly  plain  one.  It  is  not  encumbered  with 
any  of  those  vexed  questions  that  might  be  expected  to 
arise  out  of  a  great  war.  You  are  not  called  upon  to 
decide  what  kind  of  rule  a  military  commander  may  impose 


34  Argume7itation  and  Debate 

upon  the  inhabitants  of  a  hostile  country  which  he  occu- 
pies as  a  conqueror,  or  what  punishment  he  may  inflict 
upon  the  soldiers  of  his  own  army  or  the  followers  of 
his  camp ;  or  yet  how  he  may  deal  with  civilians  in  a 
beleaguered  city  or  other  place  in  a  state  of  actual  siege 
which  he  is  required  to  defend  against  a  public  enemy. 
The  contest  covers  no  such  ground  as  that.  The  men 
whose  acts  we  complain  of  erected  themselves  into  a 
tribunal  for  the  trial  and  punishment  of  citizens  who  were 
connected  in  no  way  whatever  with  the  army  or  navy. 
And  this  they  did  in  the  midst  of  a  community  whose 
social  and  legal  organization  had  never  been  disturbed 
by  any  war  or  insurrection,  where  the  courts  were  wide 
open,  where  judicial  process  was  executed  every  day 
without  interruption,  and  where  all  the  civil  authorities, 
both  State  and  National,  were  in  the  full  exercise  of  their 
functions.  .  .  . 

"  Keeping  the  character  of  the  charges  in  mind,  let  us 
come  at  once  to  the  simple  question  upon  which  the  court 
below  divided  in  opinion  :  Had  the  commissioners  jurisdic- 
tion, were  they  invested  with  legal  authority  to  try  the 
relators  and  put  them  to  death  for  the  offence  of  which 
they  were  accused  ?  "  ^ 

(2)  But  the  fault  of  taking  too  many  facts  under 
consideration  in  fixing  upon  the  issues  is  probably  not 
so  common  as  the  fault  of  considering  too  few  facts. 
The  issues  cannot  be  found  without  a  complete  un- 
derstanding of  the  proposition  in  all  its  phases.  The 
phase  that  is,  on  hasty  judgment,  passed  over  as 
seemingly  insignificant  often  develops  with  careful 
scrutiny  into  some  new  line  of  thought  and  discloses 

1 "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  484,  485. 


The  Issues  35 

a  new  and  vital  issue.  "  In  science,  the  residual 
phenomenon  will  sometimes  pull  down  the  hypothesis 

'that  has  explained  everything  else The  older 

naturalists  had  framed  a  complete  theory  of  genera  and 
species,  but  neglected  variation ;  and  yet  these  de- 
spised variations  became,  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Darwin, 
the  key  to  the  history  of  creation."  Nothing  that  is 
relevant  can  safely  be  ignored,  however  much  it  may 
seem  a  matter  of  detail.  The  question  must  be  thor- 
oughly investigated  in  all  its  phases  before  any  at- 
tempt is  made  to  find  issues. 

(3)  Akin  to  this  study  of  all  the  phases  and  points 
of  view  is  the  necessity  of  knowing  both  sides  of  the 
question.  With  a  knowledge  of  only  his  own  side,  a 
disputant  may  invent  some  points  that  he  decides  he 
will  prove ;  but  he  cannot  know  the  real  issues.  The 
issues  are  always  the  points  on  which  there  is  a  con- 
flict of  opinion.  To  determine  where  this  conflict  is, 
he  must  obviously  know  what  his  opponents  maintain, 
what  they  are  willing  to  admit,  and  what  they  deny. 
Consequently  there  is  nothing  that  will  help  more  to 
reveal  the  critical  points  in  any  discussion  than  to 
compare  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  conflicting 
sides. 

(4)  When  we  have  gained  the  proper  knowledge 
of  all  the  facts,  the  process  is  then  a  process  of 
selection. 

The  first  step  of  selection  that  may  be  taken  is 
the  exclusio7i  of  admitted  matter.  Clearly,  if  both 
sides  admit  the  truth  of  a  certain  idea,  that  idea  can- 


36  Argumentation  and  Debate 

not  be  a  critical  point.  The  clash  of  opinion  cannot 
arise  from  such  a  point,  so  that  it  iis  practically  irrel- 
evant in  the  question.  By  excluding  such  facts  as 
these,  we  can  narrow  the  material  down  to  the  sig- 
nificant facts,  which  only  are  valuable. 

This  is  a  method  often  used  by  great  lawyers  and 
deliberative  orators.  Mr.  William  Wirt,  in  the  case 
of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  finds  the  issues  of  the  case 
by  first  excluding  the  matters  that  may  be  admitted 
by  either  side.  The  legislature  of  New  York  had 
granted  to  Robert  Fulton  and  others  certain  exclusive 
rights  of  navigation  on  the  waters  of  the  state.  Mr. 
Wirt,  in  his  speech,  was  endeavoring  to  prove  the 
grant  to  be  unconstitutional.     He  began  :  — 

**In  discussing  this  question,  the  general  principles 
assumed  as  postulates  on  the  other  side  may  be,  for  the 
most  part,  admitted.  Thus  it  may  be  admitted,  that  by 
force  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  each  state  be- 
came sovereign  ;  that  they  were,  then,  independent  of  each 
other;  that  by  virtue  of  their  separate  sovereignty  they 
had  each  full  power  to  levy  war,  to  make  peace,  to  establish 
and  regulate  commerce,  to  encourage  the  arts,  and  gener- 
ally to  perform  all  other  acts  of  sovereignty.  I  shall  also 
concede  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  one 
of  delegated  powers,  and  that  it  is  one  of  enumer- 
ated powers,  as  contended  for  by  the  counsel  for  the 
correspondent.  .  .  . 

"  The  peculiar  rule  of  construction  demanded  for  those 
powers  may  also  be  conceded.  But  the  express  powers 
are  to  be  strictly  construed ;  the  implied  powers  are  to  be 
construed  liberally.  By  this  it  is  understood  to  be  meant, 
that  Congress  can  do  no  more  than  they  are  expressly  au- 


TJie  Issues  ^y 

thorized  to  do ;  though  the  means  of  doing  it  are  left  to  their 
discretion,  under  no  other  limit  than  that  they  shall  be 
necessary  and  proper  to  the  end."^ 

(5)  Having  excluded  from  consideration  all  admit- 
ted matter,  the  remaining  facts  are  many  and  of 
varied  importance ;  but  somewhere  among  them  are 
the  sought-for  issues.  In  analyzing  these  facts  it 
is  important  to  notice  what  are  the  points  on  which 
there  is  a  direct  and  earnest  "  clash  of  opinion."  If 
the  opponents  in  any  discussion  affirm  and  deny 
some  particular  matter  in  direct  contradiction  of  each 
other,  this  particular  matter  of  fact  is  sure  to  be 
significant.  One  of  two  things  is  true:  either  (i)  the 
difference  of  opinion  on  the  whole  question  depends 
in  some  degree  on  a  difference  of  opinion  concerning 
this  fact,  or  (2)  this  is  a  fact  that  neither  side  can 
afford  to  admit. 

It  is  often  a  help  to  ask  this  very  question :  Can 
the  other  side  afford  to  admit  this  fact  f  Certainly,  if 
they  cannot  afford  to  admit  it,  we  have  accomplished 
something  if  we  succeed  in  establishing  it  against 
them,  and  it  must  be  one  of  the  most  important  points 
in  the  case.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Webster,  in  the 
famous  White  murder  trial,  established  one  of  his 
issues  in  the  face  of  the  contradictions  of  the  oppos- 
ing counsel. 

"The  counsel  say  that  they  might  safely  admit  that 
Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  was  the  perpetrator  of  this  mur- 
der.    But  how  could  they  safely  admit  that  ?     If  that  were 

I9  Wheaton,  160. 


38  Argumentation  and  Debate 

admitted,  everything  else  would  follow.  For  why  should 
Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  kill  Mr.  White  ?  He  was  not 
his  heir,  nor  his  devisee ;  nor  was  he  his  enemy.  What 
could  be  his  motive  ?  If  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  killed 
Mr.  White,  he  did  it  at  some  one's  procurement  who  him- 
self had  a  motive.  And  who,  having  a  motive,  is  shown 
to  have  had  any  intercourse  with  Richard  Crowninshield, 
Jr.,  but  Joseph  Knapp,  and  this  principally  through  the 
agency  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar?  .  .  .  He  who 
believes,  on  this  evidence,  that  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr., 
was  the  immediate  murderer  cannot  doubt  that  both  the 
Knapps  were  conspirators  in  that  murder.  .  .  .  The 
admission  of  so  important  and  so  connected  a  fact  would 
render  it  impossible  to  contend  further  against  the  proof 
of  the  entire  conspiracy  as  we  state  it." 

In  either  case  —  if  either  the  fact  is  denied  by  the 
other  side,  or  the  other  side  cannot  afford  to  admit  it 
—  the  fact  is  one  of  the  critical  points  among  which 
the  issues  are  to  be  found. 

(6)  It  must  not,  however,  be  assumed  that  every 
fact  that  is  denied  or  that  cannot  safely  be  admitted 
is  one  of  the  issues.  It  may  be  a  subordinate  issue, 
important  only  because  the  proof  of  it  establishes  or 
helps  to  establish  some  larger  fact.  In  that  case  the 
larger  fact,  that  the  subordinate  fact  serves  to  prove, 
is  one  of  the  issues. 

Usually  this  discrimination  between  the  issues  and 
the  subordinate  issues  is  not  difficult.  The  issues  are 
the  points  the  proving  of  which  directly  proves  the 
proposition  itself ;  the  proving  of  the  subordinate 
issues,  on  the  other  hand,  helps  to  prove  some  larger 


The  Issues  39 

fact,  which  larger  fact  in  turn  serves  to  prove  the 
proposition.  The  issues  are  related  directly  to  the 
proposition ;  the  subordinate  issues,  indirectly.  For 
an  example,  take  the  question  :  Resolved,  that  labor 
unions  should  be  compelled  to  incorporate.  In  the 
consideration  of  this  question  the  fact  would  be  em- 
phasized that  labor  unions  had  very  rarely  broken 
their  contracts  with  their  employers  in  the  past. 
This  would  clearly  be  only  a  subordinate  issue.  It 
would  not  serve  to  estabUsh  the  proposition  directly ; 
it  would  be  significant  only  because  it  would  help  to 
establish  the  larger  fact,  that  there  was  no  necessity 
for  compelling  the  unions  to  incorporate.  This  last- 
mentioned  point,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  one  of 
the  issues ;  it  would  be  a  critical  fact  not  admitted 
by  the  opposing  side,  on  which  there  was  a  clash  of 
opinion,  and  it  would  stand  in  direct  and  immediate 
connection  with  the  proposition. 

It  is  often  a  help  in  making  this  discrimination 
between  primary  and  subordinate  issues  to  bear  in 
mind  the  nature  of  this  relation  between  the  issues 
and  the  lesser  materials  of  the  proof.  The  issues  are 
always  few  in  number,  rarely  more  than  four  points 
in  any  one  question ;  and  these  points  should  be,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  of  coequal  value.  They  are  cen- 
tres around  which  all  the  lesser  facts  are  gathered, 
thus  serving  to  bring  all  the  materials  of  the  proof 
into  connection  with  the  proposition.  In  selecting 
the  issues,  then,  points  should  be  chosen  which  are 
nearly  equal  in  value  to  one  another,  and  which  are 


40  Argumentation  and  Debate 

of  such  a  nature  that  all  the  evidence  and  arguments 
that  it  is  desirable  to  use  in  the  case  can  be  logically 
grouped  around  them. 

(7)  In  finding  the  issues  it  is  often  profitable  to 
study  the  history  of  the  question.  We  have  seen  the 
desirability  of  this  investigation  in  the  work  of  formu- 
lating the  proposition.  It  is  of  equal  service  in  finding 
the  issues,  and  is  one  of  the  most  common  devices 
used  in  the  court  room  or  the  assembly.  The  nature 
of  any  controversy  must  depend  largely  upon  the  cir- 
cumstances of  its  birth.  If  to-day  in  America  we 
discuss  the  question  whether  it  is  desirable  to  enact 
"  anti-trust  laws,"  the  whole  question  turns  on  the 
history  of  the  so-called  "trusts"  and  their  epect  in 
the  past  on  the  economic  and  political  conditions  of  the 
country.  If  we  consider  the  question  whether  free 
trade  would  be  preferable  to  protection,  we  find 
that  it  is  the  past  history  of  the  question  in  other 
countries  that  shows  what  are  the  points  of  conflict 
between  the  opposing  systems. 

The  following  is  an  excellent  illustration  of  find- 
ing the  issues,  taken  from  the  argument  by  Daniel 
Webster  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Luther  vs.  Borden.  The  events  that  gave  rise  to 
this  case  occurred  in  Rhode  Island  in  1841-42  and 
were  what  was  popularly  known  as  the  Dorr  Rebel- 
lion.    Mr.  Webster  began  :  — 

"  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  years  1841  and  1842  po- 
litical agitation  existed  in  Rhode  Island.  Some  of  the 
citizens  of  that  State  undertook  to  form  a  new  constitution 


The  Issues  41 

of  government,  beginning  their  proceedings  toward  that  end 
by  meetings  of  the  people,  held  without  authority  of  law, 
and  conducting  those  proceedings  through  such  forms  as 
led  them,  in  1842,  to  say  that  they  had  established  a  new 
constitution  and  form  of  government,  and  placed  Mr. 
Thomas  W.  Dorr  at  its  head.  .  .  .  All  will  remember 
that  the  state  of  things  approached  if  not  actual  con- 
flict between  men  in  arms,  at  least  the  *  perilous  edge  of 
battle.'  In  June,  1842,  this  agitation  subsided.  The  new 
government,  as  it  called  itself,  disappeared  from  the  scene 
of  action.  The  former  government,  the  Charter  govern- 
ment, as  it  was  sometimes  styled,  resumed  undisputed 
control,  went  on  in  its  ordinary  course,  and  the  peace  of 
the  State  was  restored. 

"  But  the  past  had  been  too  serious  to  be  forgotten. 
The  legislature  of  the  State  had,  at  an  early  stage  of  the 
troubles,  found  it  necessary  to  enact  special  laws  for  the 
punishment  of  the  persons  concerned  in  these  proceedings. 
It  defined  the  crime  of  treason,  as  well  as  smaller 
offences,  and  authorized  the  declaration  of  martial  law. 
.  .  .  This  having  been  done,  and  the  ephemeral  govern- 
ment of  Mr.  Dorr  having  disappeared,  the  grand  juries  of 
the  State  found  indictments  against  several  persons  for 
having  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  State,  and  one  against 
Dorr  himself  for  treason.  This  indictment  came  on  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Rhode  Island  in  1844,  before  a 
tribunal  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  the  legal  judicature 
of  the  State.  He  was  tried  by  a  jury  of  Rhode  Island, 
above  all  objection,  and  after  all  challenge.  By  that  jury, 
under  the  instructions  of  the  court,  he  was  convicted  of 
treason,  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life. 

"  Now  that  an  action  is  brought  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  and  before  your  honors,  by  appeal,  in 
which  ...  it  is  alleged  that  Mr.  Dorr,  instead  of  being  a 


42  Argumentation  and  Debate 

traitor  or  an  insurrectionist,  was  the  real  governor  of  the 
State  at  the  time ;  that  the  force  used  by  him  was  exer- 
cised in  defence  of  the  constitution  and  laws,  and  not 
against  them ;  that  he  M'ho  opposed  the  constituted  au- 
thorities was  not  Mr.  Dorr  but  Governor  King ;  and  that 
it  was  he  who  should  have  been  indicted,  and  tried,  and 
sentenced."  ^ 

To  summarize,  in  finding  the  issues:  (i)  put  aside 
all  matters  that  are  not  related  directly  to  the  propo- 
sition ;  (2)  but  be  sure  to  understand  the  question 
in  all  its  phases  and  all  its  details ;  (3)  know  both 
sides  of  the  question  thoroughly ;  (4)  exclude  all 
irrelevant  matter  and  all  matter  that  each  side  can 
admit  without  damaging  its  cause;  (5)  select  the 
points  on  which  there  is  a  direct  clash  of  opinion 
between  the  opposing  sides  or  which  cannot  be 
admitted  by  the  one  side  or  the  other ;  (6)  discrimi- 
nate between  the  issues  and  the  subordinate  issues; 
(7)  study  the  origin  and  history  of  the  question. 

Finally,  there  is  one  error  which  is  responsible 
more  than  all  others,  especially  with  beginners,  for 
failures  in  finding  the  issues.  It  is  all  too  easy  to 
confuse  the  issues  with  what  is  commonly  known  as 
a  partition,  which  consists  in  a  mere  statement  of 
points  to  be  proved  in  the  discussion.  It  is  a  sim- 
ple matter  in  any  question  to  select  arbitrarily  a  few 
important  facts  which  it  seems  desirable  to  establish; 
but  this  is  not  by  any  means  the  same  thing  as  de- 

^The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  217-219.  Little, 
Brown  and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


The  Issues  43 

termining  upon  the  issues.  To  make  the  distinction 
clear :  suppose  two  armies  are  contending  for  the 
possession  of  a  given  territory,  the  control  of  which 
both  understand  must  depend  upon  the  holding  of 
two  particular  points,  a  pass  and  a  certain  height  of 
ground.  Now  there  are  various  positions  which  the  two 
opposing  forces  may  seize  and  hold,  and  various  lines 
of  attack  which  they  may  adopt,  depending  upon  the 
peculiar  habits  and  methods  of  the  respective  generals  ; 
but  these  positions  and  this  strategy  are  valuable 
only  as  they  serv^e  to  give  the  command  of  these  two 
critical  points.  In  a  like  manner,  let  us  suppose  two 
disputants  are  arguing  the  question :  Resolved,  that 
the  army  canteen  should  be  reestablished.  Now 
the  settlement  of  this  question  will  depend  upon  the 
decision  of  two  issues;  namely,  (i)  whether  the 
canteen  is  beneficial  to  the  individual  soldier,  and 
(2)  whether  it  is  beneficial  to  the  army  as  a  whole. 
A  speaker  on  the  affirmative  might  in  his  argument 
state  his  intention  of  proving  three  points  as  follows  : 
(i)  that  the  opinions  of  reliable  army  officers  are 
favorable  to  the  canteen ;  (2)  that  the  number  of 
arrests  for  drunkenness  increased  when  the  canteen 
was  abolished ;  (3)  that  the  canteen  is  beneficial  in 
other  countries.  These  three  points  may  be  well 
chosen,  but  their  importance  must  be  derived  from 
their  efficiency  in  establishing  the  affirmative  side  of 
the  two  issues  mentioned  above.  A  partition,  then, 
is  a  statement  of  the  points  the  arguer  intends  to 
prove ;    the   issues   are   the   points   he   must  prove 


44  Argumentation  and  Debate 

in  order  to  prove  his  case.  If  the  points  of  the 
partition  are  well  chosen,  they  will  usually  corre- 
spond closely  with  the  issues;  but  they  may  be 
entirely  different,  and  they  are  not  in  any  case 
necessarily  identical. 


BOOK   II.    SELECTION 
CHAPTER  I 

PRELIMINARY  READING 

In  the  discussion  of  the  chapters  under  the  head 
of  Invention  we  have  seen  how  a  question  must  be 
analyzed  in  order  (i)  to  understand  what  is  the  real 
proposition  to  be  established,  and  (2)  to  find  out  the 
vital  ideas  or  matters  of  fact  which  must  be  demon- 
strated to  establish  this  proposition. 

We  next  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  means 
and  methods  to  be  employed  in  the  work  of  demon- 
strating these  vital  points,  or  issues,  which  have  been 
determined  upon.  As  we  shall  see  later,  much  depends 
on  the  methods  by  which  we  arrange  our  material  and 
present  it  to  the  reader  or  hearer.  But  before  we 
can  arrange  our  proofs  or  present  them,  we  must,  obvi- 
ously, get  the  material  to  be  used.  This  getting  of 
material  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts :  first, 
the  gathering  of  material  by  preliminary  reading 
and  investigation ;  and  second,  the  selecting  from  all 
this  material  of  those  parts  that  will  best  serve  our 
purpose  in  the  given  case. 

All  argumentation  which  involves  preparation  of 
any  kind  involves  a  considerable  amount  of  pre- 
liminary reading.  The  amount  varies  ;  but  in  most 
serious   argumentative  work  the  time  thus  spent  is 

45 


46  Argumentation  and  Debate 

probably  greater  than  that  spent  in  all  the  other  work 
of  preparation  taken  together.  The  lawyer  spends 
by  far  the  greatest  part  of  his  time  in  examining  wit- 
nesses and  documents.  The  able  senator  or  repre- 
sentative preparing  for  debate  works  longest  and 
hardest  in  the  collection  of  facts  and  figures.  The 
intercollegiate  debater  labors  for  weeks  in  every 
library  and  on  every  document  he  can  reach  to  gather 
the  materials  for  a  twelve-minute  speech. 

In  the  case  of  the  beginner  in  argumentation,  it 
must  also  be  admitted  that  more  time  is  wasted  here 
than  elsewhere.  To  a  man  who  has  had  no  practical 
experience,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  particular 
need  of  method  in  reading.  Newspapers,  magazines, 
and  encyclopaedias  all  seem  ahke  as  long  as  he  can 
find  in  them  anything  bearing  on  the  question. 
His  method  commonly  is  to  start  in  anywhere  and 
read  as  long  as  he  can.  Inevitably  he  wastes  many 
hours  at  the  start  on  worthless  material,  aind  later,  to 
make  up  the  time,  he  rushes  along  over  the  best 
authorities  with  careless  haste.  Again,  such  a  reader 
does  not  really  comprehend  or  assimilate  what  he 
reads.  He  reaps  a  harvest  of  quotations  from  here 
and  there,  picks  out  a  few  points  from  this  writer  and 
that,  and  he  thinks  his  preparation  is  complete. 

This  inabihty  to  gather  material  intelligently  is  a 
serious  weakness.  To  have  a  rational  method  is  no- 
where more  necessary  than  here.  There  must,  of 
course,  be  individuality  in  all  work  of  this  kind ;  per- 
sonality should  everywhere  be  cultivated  rather  than 


Preliminary  Reading  47 

repressed.  But  there  are  some  principles  that  have 
been  engendered  by  common  experience  and  that 
have  a  universal  application. 

I.   The  Use  of  a  Note-book 

It  is  a  not  uncommon  mistake  for  a  student  to 
trust  the  safe-keeping  of  the  ideas  that  he  finds  to  his 
memory,  with  the  almost  inevitable  result  that,  when 
called  for,  the  ideas  are  not  available.  They  either 
vanish  and  contribute  nothing  to  the  cause,  or  they 
must  be  sought  anew  at  some  future  time  at  the  cost 
of  reduplicated  work.  Often  it  becomes  necessary 
to  verify  some  idea  that  has  been  suggested  by  some 
magazine  article  or  to  reenforce  it  with  some  good 
authority,  and  the  chances  are  strongly  against  the 
probabiHty  that  the  original  article  can  be  found  again. 
It  is  an  extraordinary  memory  that  can  recall  such  a 
reference.  Again,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  tell  at 
the  beginning  just  what  evidence  will  finally  be  valu- 
able. Facts  that  seem  trivial  at  the  moment  when  we 
read  them  may  turn  out  in  the  end  to  be  important. 
But  if  no  note  is  taken  of  them,  they  are  almost  surely 
lost.  Against  these  and  many  other  evils  there  is  but 
one  safeguard.  A  note-book  should  be  always  at 
hand,  in  which  to  take  down  ideas,  arguments,  and 
quotations  when   they  are  discovered. 

II.    Reading  from  the  General  to  the  Specific 

A  lawyer  preparing  his  case  for  court  begins  his 
examination    of  witnesses   with    the   examination  of 


48  Argumentation  and  Debate 

his  client.  With  his  story  as  a  foundation  he  then 
goes  on  to  seek  the  lesser  details  that  he  needs 
to  "  fill  in  "  his  case.  He  knows  that  to  begin  with 
the  testimony  of  his  lesser  witnesses  would  result 
in  confusion  and  waste  of  time.  He  might  find 
that  the  testimony  he  had  spent  hours  in  seeking  was 
more  easily  found  elsewhere,  or  that,  after  all,  it  was 
of  no  service  to  the  cause  of  his  client. 

The  principle  applies  with  equal  force  in  the  search 
for  evidence  by  preliminary  reading.  For  example, 
the  American  newspaper  is  a  valuable  source  of  ma- 
terial. Few  are  the  discussions  where  it  cannot  be 
used  with  effect,  if  it  is  used  properly.  But  in  most 
cases  it  should  be  handled  as  the  lawyer  would  handle 
the  witness  who  testified  that  the  defendant,  on  a 
certain  day  and  hour,  came  to  a  certain  livery  stable 
and  hired  a  certain  horse  and  carriage.  Such  evi- 
dence might  hang  a  man ;  the  whole  question  of  the 
guilt  of  a  murderer  might  depend  on  the  identification 
of  that  particular  horse  and  carriage.  But  that  wit- 
ness is  not  the  first  to  be  examined  ;  it  might  happen 
that  his  testimony  had  no  bearing  on  the  case.  The 
newspaper  should  be  used  in  a  similar  way.  It  is 
valuable  as  a  means  of  corroboration ;  it  may  be 
valuable  as  a  source  of  facts  for  the  support  of  some 
vital  argument.     But  it  should  rarely  be  read  first. 

Various  dangers  arise  from  such  premature  read- 
ing of  the  newspaper.  In  the  first  place,  it  would 
often  mean  a  waste  of  time.  A  writer  of  acknowl- 
edged authority  on   a   particular   problem   will   put 


Preliminary  Reading  49 

into  a  few  lines  the  substance  of  the  whole  of  a 
popular  newspaper  editorial.  Again,  the  student 
who  seeks  such  a  lesser  source  first  will  find  that 
he  has  spent  time  in  gathering  arguments  and  facts 
that  better  writers  easily  refute.  More  serious 
still,  an  investigator  will  often  get  from  such  a 
doubtful  source  false  impressions  that  later  reading 
cannot  entirely  efface.  The  work  of  preliminary 
reading,  in  this  respect,  is  an  exact  analogy  to  the 
work  of  the  architect  or  the  constructor.  What  kind 
of  judgment  would  it  be  on  his  part  to  plan  his  roof 
and  windows  before  he  knew  the  size  of  the  house  or 
the  general  style  of  its  architecture  .''  The  writer  who 
goes  in  search  of  newspaper  facts  before  he  knows 
the  fundamental  conditions  of  the  problem  in  hand 
and  the  broad  outlines  of  his  case  shows  no  better 
judgment. 

The  effective  method  is :  — 

A.  Begin  the  investigation  with  the  reading  of 
books  and  magazine  articles  that  give  an  understand- 
ing of  the  general  conditions  on  which  the  question 
is  founded.  The  understanding  so  gained  is  a  touch- 
stone by  which  all  else  may  be  tested. 

B.  Next,  take  up  magazine  articles  or  pamphlets 
bearing  on  the  particular  question  in  dispute.  By 
this  time  the  main  ideas  on  which  the  proof  must 
be  founded  gradually  appear,  and  the  case  as  a 
whole  begins  to  assume  a  definite  form. 

C.  Finally,  make  a  discriminating  use  of  such 
sources  as  the  newspaper,  to  get  the  details  of  evidence. 

E 


50  Argumentation  and  Debate 

To  take  an  example:  Suppose  that  in  the  year 
1898  a  student  had  been  preparing  to  debate  the 
question,  Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should 
permanently  retain  the  Philippine  Islands.  He 
would  first  have  taken  up  books  and  magazine  arti- 
cles by  such  writers  as  Mr.  John  Foreman,  Professor 
Dean  C.  Worcester,  or  Mr.  R.  R.  Lala  —  men  who 
had  lived  in  the  Islands  and  were  acquainted  with 
the  conditions  there.  From  them  he  would  have 
found  out  the  character  of  the  people,  their  social 
and  economic  conditions,  the  nature  of  the  country, 
climate,  etc.  Also  he  would  have  taken  a  general 
survey  of  the  territorial  history  of  the  United  States, 
her  past  acquisitions,  and  her  success  in  "colonial" 
administration;  this  from  such  sources  as  selected 
chapters  from  Hildreth's  "  History  of  the  United 
States,"  Winsor's  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History 
of  America,"  or  Hinsdale's  "The  Old  Northwest." 
Then,  too,  the  constitutional  question  would  have 
demanded  early  investigation.  He  would  have  read 
such  authors  as  Thomas  M.  Cooley  on  the  powers 
of  the  Federal  government  to  acquire  and  perma- 
nently hold  territory  as  colonies ;  he  would  have 
consulted  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  affect- 
ing the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  such  action. 

The  opinions  of  public  men  and  the  many  pam- 
phleteers of  the  day,  concerning  the  political  poten- 
tialities of  the  P^ilipinos  and  the  economic  prospects 
of  the  archipelago,  concerning  the  powers  and  duties 
of  Congress,  were  innumerable ;  and  most  of  them 


Preliminary  Reading  5 1 

were  as  visionary  and  worthless  as  they  were  high- 
sounding  and  pretentious.  Any  man,  not  acquainted 
with  the  real  conditions  of  the  problem,  would  have 
accepted  the  statements  of  these  men  at  their  face 
value.  He  would  have  wasted  time  by  giving  them 
serious  attention,  and  —  far  more  detrimental  — he 
might  well  have  founded  a  large  part  of  his  case 
upon  this  worthless  evidence,  to  find,  when  con- 
fronted with  a  better  informed  opponent,  that  his 
argument  was  "builded  upon  the  sand."  So,  in  the 
end,  the  reading  of  these  authorities  on  the  funda- 
mental conditions  of  the  question  would  have  saved 
him  time  and  perhaps  the  misfortune  of  defeat. 

Next,  he  would  have  turned  to  magazine  articles 
and  pamphlets  bearing  on  the  particular  question  of 
the  future  policy  of  the  United  States  with  respect 
to  the  retention  of  the  Islands.  Here  he  would 
have  availed  himself  of  the  writings  of  such  men 
as  Senator  Cushman  K.  Davis,  Colonel  Charles 
Denby,.  and  President  J.  G.  Schurman.  From  such 
sources  he  would  have  gathered  ideas  about  the 
rights  and  duties  of  this  country  in  the  situation  and 
the  commercial  interests  of  the  American  people. 
By  this  time  he  would  have  been  able  to  discern 
just  where  there  were  conflicts  of  opinion  in  the 
question.  These  points  of  conflict,  in  the  light  of 
his  knowledge  of  the  general  problem,  would  have 
gradually  taken  form  as  the  issues.  His  case  as 
a  whole  would  have  been  established  on  a  firm 
foundation  and  wrought  into  fairly  definite  form. 


52  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Finally,  he  would  have  secured  from  the  Con- 
gressional Record  and  the  reliable  newspapers  of 
this  country  and  other  countries  the  details  of  the 
political  movements  of  the  day,  such  as  resolutions  of 
Congress  bearing  on  the  question,  the  conduct  of  the 
army  and  navy  in  the  Islands,  the  attitude  of  other 
governments  toward  the  United  States,  etc. 

It  is  only  by  following  such  a  plan  of  reading 
as  this  that  there  can  be  secured  the  three  things 
most  to  be  sought  in  the  work  of  reading  prelimi- 
nary to  arrangement  and  final  presentatigri,  viz.  •'  ( i ) 
a  grasp  of  the  question  as  a  whole;  (2)  an  understand- 
ing of  the  vitally  important  points  in  the  case;  and 
(3)  the  getting  of  evidence  that  is  relevant  and 
reliable. 

III.   Reading  on  Both  Sides  of  the  Question 

To  know  both  sides  of  the  question  thoroughly 
is  indispensable  in  all  stages  of  argumentation.  In 
the  first  place,  without  such  knowledge  a  disputant 
cannot  have  that  understanding  of  his  case  as  a 
whole  which  must  precede  the  intelligent  use  of 
evidence  and  arguments.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  first  step  in  preparation,  and  one  of  the 
most  important  steps,  is  always  the  finding  of  the 
issues.  But  these  issues  cannot  be  found  except 
by  knowing  both  sides.  The  issues  are  always 
the  points  on  which  there  is  a  direct  clash  of  opinion, 
and  clearly  these  points  can  only  be  picked  out  by 
comparing   the   assertions   of   the   opposing   parties 


Prelimifiajy  Reading  53 

and    ascertaining    just   where    these   assertions   are 
contradictory. 

Again,  a  disputant  who  knows  only  the  arguments 
on  his  own  side  of  the  case  may  find  himself  helpless 
when  confronted  with  some  unexpected  argument 
of  his  opponent.  This  inability  to  meet  and  repel 
an  opponent  is  fatal  to  success  in  a  war  of  words, 
and  it  must  be  guarded  against  in  preparation.  Such 
arguments  are  rarely  to  be  answered  by  inspiration. 
Inspiration  is  not  always  reliable.  The  necessary 
knowledge  must  be  gained  before  the  actual  crisis 
comes;  and  it  can  only  be  gained  by  studying  the 
other  side  of  the  question  and  considering  how  any 
attack  may  best  be  met. 

IV.   What  to  look  for  in  Reading 

In  reading  any  book  or  article,  two  things  are 
generally  to  be  sought.  First,  the  reader  should 
find  the  point  of  view  which  the  writer  takes  of  his 
subject  as  a  whole  and  the  points  which  he  seems 
to  regard  as  the  critical  facts  in  the  case.  Second, 
the  reader  should  look  for  any  new  points  of  evi- 
dence, or  any  quotable  matter.  These  points  and 
quotations  should  be  noted  as  they  arise.  It  is  a 
common  experience  of  a  beginner  that  he  passes 
over  some  idea  or  some  apt  quotation  without  taking 
note  of  it,  to  find  that  later  if  he  only  had  it  at 
hand  it  would  be  a  valuable  piece  of  evidence  or 
a  strong  argument  from  authority. 

New  evidence   is  valuable  wherever  it  is   found, 


54  Argumentation  and  Debate 

and  some  note  should  always  be  taken  of  it.  Quota- 
tions,  on  the  other  hand,  are  valuable  only  as  they 
come  from  some  writer  who  is  a  generally  recognized 
authority  on  the  subject.  And  it  should  be  borne 
in  mind  that  as  to  who  is  an  authority  the  audience 
is  always  the  final  judge.  No  matter  how  great  the 
knowledge  of  any  writer,  if  he  is  unknown  to  the 
audience  or  doubted  by  them,  the  quotation  ceases 
to  have  value  as  evidence  or  as  an  "  argument  from 
authority."  But  in  reading  the  words  of  a  writer 
of  acknowledged  standing,  the  note-book  should  be 
freely  used.  The  quotation  may  be  taken  down  in 
full,  or  some  reference  may  be  noted  to  the  place 
where  it  is  found ;  but  it  must  not  be  suffered  to 
escape  entirely. 

V.   Assimilation 

V  Assimilation  is  the  process  by  which  plants  and 
animals  convert  food  into  the  various  tissues  of  their 
own  proper  substance."  When  a  man  eats,  if  the 
food  he  takes  is  properly  assimilated,  it  ceases  to 
exist  as  food  and  becomes  part  of  the  man  himself. 
So  in  argumentation,  assimilation  is  the  process  by 
which  the  student  converts  the  materials  gathered 
from  all  sources  into  the  fibres  of  his  own  finished 
argument. 

We  have  stated  in  the  preceding  section  that  the 
first  thing  to  be  sought  in  the  reading  of  any  book 
or  article  is  the  point  or  points  which  the  writer 
regards  as  vital  in  the  case.     Merely  to  seize  upon 


Pf'eiiminary  Reading  55 

these  ideas  and  force  them  bodily  into  the  proof 
without  change  of  form,  would  inevitably  produce 
the  same  disastrous  effects  that  would  ensue  if  a  man 
should  eat  without  digestion.  The  proof  would  be 
weak  and  ill  formed.  It  would  be  a  mere  jumble 
of  facts  and  figures.  The  varied  and  conflicting 
ideas  of  different  men  would  be  mixed  together  in 
confusion.  The  force  of  evidence  that  might  be 
made  convincing  would  be  spent  with  no.  effect.  To 
beget  strength  and  vitaHty  in  proof,  the  ideas  and 
arguments  of  other  writers  and  thinkers  must  be  so 
fused  with  one  another  and  with  the  ideas  of  the 
student  himself,  that  the  final  product  bears  little  if 
any  resemblance  to  any  one  of  the  parts  of  which  it 
is  made ;  it  is  not  the  idea  of  this  book  or  that,  nor 
the  idea  of  the  reader,  but  an  indivisible  composite 
of  all.  Like  the  body,  the  proof  is  made  of  all  kinds 
of  substances,  but  it  must  itself  be  new  and  a  dis- 
tinctive unit. 

There  is  but  one  way  in  which  material  can  be  so 
assimilated.  It  must  be  done  by  the  careful  and 
constant  thought  of  the  reader  as  he  progresses, 
step  by  step.  When  one  starts  out  to  read  on  any 
subject,  he  nearly  always  has  in  his  own  mind  some 
original  conceptions  of  the  question.  In  the  first 
place,  then,  he  should  understand  just  what  these 
conceptions  are.  Then,  when  in  the  course  of  his 
reading  he  finds  some  new  idea,  some  new  argument, 
he  should  compare  it  carefully  with  the  contents  of 
his  own  mind,  and  modify  his  own  conceptions  ac- 


56  Argumentatio7i  and  Debate 

cordingly.  The  ideas  that  result  will  not  be  those 
he  has  read,  nor  will  they  be  those  he  had  originally : 
they  will  be  new.  This  process  must  be  kept  up  un- 
remittingly. The  material  cannot  be  stored  up  for 
future  assimilation  any  more  safely  than  a  man 
could  postpone  the  digestion  of  his  food.  Each  bit 
of  material  must  be  understood,  compared,  and  as- 
similated when  it  first  comes  to  the  eye.  The  evi- 
dence gathered  in  this  way  ceases  to  exist  in  its 
various  foreign  forms.  The  ideas  no  longer  overlap 
or  conflict  with  one  another.  They  fall  into  their 
proper  places  as,  parts  of  one  working  body. 

Such  a  method  also  gives  to  the  proof  the  inval- 
uable quahty  of  personality.  Complete  originality 
in  argumentation  is  very  rare.  The  most  effective 
speech  or  essay  often  contains  ideas  and  evidence 
that  have  become  time-honored  by  their  frequent 
usage.  But  the  ideas  are  so  altered  by  the  person- 
ality of  the  author  that  they  are  made  new.  They 
take  on  fresh  forms  and  colors  and  gather  an  origi- 
nal force.  No  quality  is  more  valuable  to  charm  or 
interest  an  audience  than  this  quality  of  personality ; 
and  the  personality  that  is  forceful  in  argumenta- 
tion is  always  attributable  largely  to  the  power  of 
assimilation. 

The  power  of  assimilation  is  gained  only  by  prac- 
tice. It  may  well  grow  into  an  unconscious  habit 
of  mind;  but  the  creation  and  development  of  it 
must  always  come  from  conscious  self-training.  The 
ability  to   assimilate  is,  of   course,  engendered   and 


Prelimi7iary  Reading  57 

strengthened  by  other  means  than  preliminary  read- 
ing in  argumentation.  But  nowhere  is  the  applica- 
tion of  the  power  more  practical  or  more  important. 
And  a  student  who  is  entering  upon  the  serious 
pursuit  of  argumentation,  however  truly  he  may 
possess  this  quality  of  mind  in  general,  will  do  well 
to  watch  himself  for  a  time,  lest  he  fall  into  other 
habits. 


CHAPTER   II 

EVIDENCE 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  second 
of  the  two  parts  in  the  process  of  Selection,  viz.,  the 
choosing  from  whatever  materials  we  have  been  able 
to  gather,  of  those  facts,  arguments,  or  appeals  that 
will  best  serve  our  purpose  in  the  case  in  hand. 
Here,  as  everywhere,  we  must  remember  the  dual 
nature  of  vail  argumentation:  our  materials  must  be 
judged  and  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  standards 
both  of  conviction  and  of  persuasion.  Persuasion  re- 
quires that  we  consider  the  character,  intelligence, 
and  personal  interests  of  our  audience  or  readers,  and 
the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  arguing,  so  that 
we  may  make  use  of  the  ideas  and  methods  that  will 
strike  most  directly  and  forcibly  upon  the  imagina- 
tion and  peculiar  emotions  of  those  we  address. 
Conviction  requires  that  we  understand  what  it  is 
that  constitutes  the  inherent  strength  of  the  various 
kinds  of  proofs,  so  that  we  may  employ  evidence  and 
arguments  that  will  seem  to  the  minds  of  others  to  be 
logically  strong  and  accurate.  Leaving  the  standards 
of  persuasion  to  be  discussed  at  a  later  time,  let  us 
now  turn  to  the  question :  What  are  the  elements  of 
strength  and  of  weakness  in  the  various  kinds  of  proof  ? 

58 


Evidence  59 

I.   Proof,  Evidence,  and  Arguments 

A.  Proof  is  the  name  used  to  designate  "all  the 
means  which  serve  to  convince  the  mind  of  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  any  fact  or  proposition."  Proof  may  be 
divided  into  two  parts :  (i)  evidence,  and  (2)  arguments. 

(i)  Evidence  consists  of  all  the  matters  of  fact  that 
may  be  used  in  the  generating  of  proof.  It  is  the 
raw  material  from  which  the  finished  product,  proof, 
is  to  be  manufactured. 

(2)  Argument,  in  its  restricted  meaning,  is  the 
name  used  to  designate  the  process  by  which,  from 
knowing  the  existence  of  one  fact,  or  a  certain  num- 
ber of  facts,  we  infer  the  existence  of  other  facts. 
This  meaning  of  the  word  "  argument "  must  not  be 
confused  with  other  meanings.  The  word  may  be  used 
to  refer  to  a  finished  discourse  as  a  whole ;  it  may 
refer  to  an  entire  debate  or  discussion ;  or,  as  here, 
it  may  mean  simply  a  single  process  of  reasoning. 
There  is,  perhaps,  no  better  definition  of  an  argument, 
in  this  sense,  than  Cardinal  Newman's  definition  of 
reason,  as  "any  process  or  act  of  the  mind  by 
which,  from  knowing  one  thing,  it  advances  on  to 
know  another !  "  To  continue  the  analogy  of  manu- 
facturing, an  argument  is  the  machinery  by  which 
the  raw  material,  evidence,  is  turned  into  the  finished 
product,  proof. 

For  an  example,  take  the  following  extract  from  a 
chapter  in  "Jonathan  Swift,"  by  John  Churton  Col- 
lins, in  which   the   author  endeavors   to  prove  that 


6o  Argumentation  and  Debate 


'^> 


Swift  was  not  married  to  Esther  Johnson :  "  What, 
again,  could  be  more  improbable  than  that  Esther 
Johnson,  a  woman  of  distinguished  piety,  nay,  a 
woman  whose  detestation  of  falsehood  formed,  as 
Swift  himself  told  us,  one  of  her  chief  attractions, 
would,  when  on  the  point  of  death,  preface  her  will 
with  a  wholly  gratuitous  lie  ?  For  not  only  is  that 
will  signed  with  her  maiden  name,  but  in  the  first 
clause  she  describes  herself  as  an  unmarried  woman." 
This  whole  selection  is  proof.  The  facts  that  Esther 
Johnson  was  a  truth-loving  woman,  that  she  signed 
her  will  with  her  maiden  name,  and  that  she  described 
herself  in  the  first  clause  as  an  unmarried  woman, 
are  evidence.  The  process  of  reasoning  by  which 
we  infer  from  these  facts  that  in  her  will  she  told 
the  truth  and  was,  therefore,  unmarried,  —  the  infer- 
ence that  these  proved  facts  estabhsh  the  truthful- 
ness of  her  assertion  that  she  was  unmarried,  —  that 
process  is  an  argument. 

II.   Evidence  consists  of  All  the  Matters  of  Fact  that 
may  be  used  in  the  Generating  of  Proof 

Evidence  is  commonly  divided  into  two  classes : 
(A)  direct,  and  (B)  indirect  or  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. This  is  sometimes  a  clarifying  distinction  to 
have  in  mind,  although  for  the  practical  purposes  of 
argumentation  it  is  not  very  significant.  (A.)  Direct 
evidence  consists  of  the  testimony  of  persons  who 
declare  the  existence  of  the  fact  in  issue,  speaking 
from  their  own  personal  knowledge.     "  A  man  testi- 


Evidence  6 1 

fies  that  he  actually  saw  A  inflict  a  mortal  wound  on 
B,  of  which  B  instantly  died ;  this  is  a  case  of  direct 
evidence."^  (B.)  Indirect  or  circumstantial  is  the 
name  applied  to  all  other  kinds  of  evidence.  It  con- 
sists of  testimony  to  the  existence  of  other  collateral 
facts,  from  the  existence  of  which  the  existence  of  the 
fact  in  question  is  to  be  inferred  by  a  process  of 
reasoning.  '*  If  a  witness  testifies  that  a  deceased 
person  was  shot  with  a  pistol,  and  the  wadding  (used 
in  this  pistol)  is  found  to  be  part  of  a  letter  addressed 
to  the  prisoner,  the  residue  of  which  is  discovered  in 
his  pocket,"  2  that  is  indirect  or  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. From  the  existence  of  these  facts  the  jury 
may  infer  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner. 

Without  entering  into  any  full  discussion  of  these 
kinds,  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that  the  most  effective 
proof  is  gained  by  the  use  of  the  two  kinds  in  combina- 
tion. Direct  evidence  may  be  untrustworthy  because 
of  mistakes  in  the  observation  of  the  witness  or  be- 
cause of  prejudice.  Circumstantial  evidence  may  be 
inconclusive  because  of  a  possible  ambiguity  in  the 
inferences  to  be  drawn  from  it.  But  when  the  two 
kinds  are  used  together,  each  confirming  the  other, 
the  evidence  becomes  of  the  highest  possible  effi- 
ciency. 

With  respect  to  its  form,  we  may  classify  evidence 
as :  (A)  written,  and  (B)  unwritten.  In  the  court  of 
law  a  considerable  part  of  the  evidence  is  unwritten. 
It   is   obtained  largely  from   the   spoken  testimony 

1  Greenleaf,  "  Evidence,"  p.  24,  2  /^^-^^ 


62  Argumentation  and  Debate 

of  witnesses,  present  before  the  judge  or  jury.  In 
argumentation  elsewhere,  however,  the  evidence  is 
largely  written.  It  is  often  akin  in  its  nature  to  the 
spoken  testimony  of  the  courts,  in  that  it  expresses 
the  behefs  of  different  persons  as  to  the  existence  of 
certain  facts.  But  the  persons  themselves  are  rarely 
present  to  express  their  beliefs  orally.  Their  opin- 
ions are  gathered  from  books,  magazines,  newspapers, 
and  documents. 

III.   Tests  of  Evidence 

Most  important  for  our  purposes  are  the  tests  to 
be  applied  to  determine  the  value  of  evidence.  To 
know  whether  a  piece  of  evidence  is  strong  or  weak 
is  essential  to  the  intelligent  making  of  a  case.  We 
can  use  only  limited  amounts  from  all  we  gather,  and 
we  must  have  the  power  to  discriminate.  Then,  too, 
we  must  know  what  is  strong  enough  to  be  put  in  the 
forefront  of  the  proof,  and  what  is  so  weak  as  to  be 
valuable  only  for  the  purpose  of  "  filling  in  "  and  re- 
enforcing  the  more  important  parts. 

There  are  two  vital  tests  of  evidence  :  (A),  the  test 
of  the  quality  of  the  evidence  itself,  and  (B),  the  test 
of  the  sources  from  whence  it  comes.  For  conven- 
ience in  our  discussion,  the  sources  of  evidence  will 
be  referred  to  as  '*  witnesses." 

A.    Tests  of  the  quality  of  the  evidence  itself. 

(i)   Burden  of  proof . 

It  should  always  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  burden 
of    establishing   the   truth   of    any   statement   rests 


Evidence  63 

upon  the  person  who  originally  makes  the  asser- 
tion. ''The  burden  of  proof  as  to  any  particular 
fact  lies  on  that  person  who  wishes  the  court  to 
believe  in  its  existence,  unless  it  is  provided  by  law 
that  the  burden  of  proving  that  fact  shall  lie  on 
any  particular  person."  ^  Even  if  the  statement 
is  negative  in  nature  —  if  it  is  a  denial  of  the  exist- 
ence of  some  other  fact  —  the  denial  itself  is  an  as- 
sertion and  must  be  supported  by  evidence.  No 
disputant  has  a  right  to  demand  that  his  opponent 
prove  the  falsity  of  any  statement  until  he  —  the 
original  maker  of  the  statement  —  has  demonstrated 
or  tried  to  demonstrate  its  truth.  Simple  denial  is 
answer  enough  to  simple  assertion. 

This  burden  is  of  added  weight  if  the  fact  whose 
existence  is  asserted  is  of  an  extraordinary  nature. 
Witnesses  who  would  be  sufficient  by  their  testimony 
to  establish  the  facts  of  a  robbery  would  not  be  suf- 
ficient to  establish  the  existence  of  a  sea-serpent  at 
a  New  England  summer  resort.  So,  too,  of  proposi- 
tions that  suggest  innovations  or  departure  from  the 
present  order  of  things.  The  presumption  is  with 
him  who  upholds  the  present  or  the  natural  condi- 
tions. In  the  question  "  Resolved,  that  in  the  United 
States  private  ownership  of  railroads  is  preferable 
to  national  ownership,"  the  negative  advocates  a 
radical  change  in  the  present  economic  and  political 
conditions  of  the  country.  Contrary  to  the  rule  of 
debate  that  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  affirmative, 

1  Stephens,  "  Digest  of  Evidence,"  p.  146. 


64  Argumentation  and  Debate 

in  such  a  case  as  this  the  presumption  is  with  the 
affirmative,  and  that  presumption  the  negative  must 
meet  and  overthrow. 

These  considerations  lead  naturally  to  the  men- 
tion of  the  most  desirable  qualities  of  evidence. 

(2)  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  htmia7t  na- 
ture and  human  experience. 

Any  man  properly  hesitates  to  accept  as  a  fact 
anything  that  runs  contrary  to  his  own  past  experi- 
ence or  the  experience  of  his  fellow-men.  To  make 
him  believe  in  any  evidence  that  contradicts  the  be- 
liefs of  his  life  and  his  habits  of  thinking  requires- 
explanation,  enforcement,  and  substantiation  that 
soon  become  an  argument  in  themselves,  and  even 
then  the  unqualified  acceptance  of  the  proof  may  be 
a  matter  of  doubt. 

If  the  evidence  is  in  this  way  contrary  to  ordinary 
human  experience,  one  must  never  neglect  to  main- 
tain its  truthfulness  by  explaining  just  why  it  is  cred- 
ible and  valuable.  Campbell,  in  his  **  Philosophy  of 
Rhetoric,"  expresses  the  situation,  when  he  says : 
"  From  experience  we  learn  to  confine  our  belief  in 
human  testimony  within  the  proper  bounds.  Hence 
we  are  taught  to  consider  many  attendant  circum- 
stances which  serve  ...  to  corroborate  ...  its  evi- 
dence. The  reputation  of  the  attester,  his  manner  of 
address,  the  nature  of  the  fact  attested,  the  occasion 
of  giving  the  testimony,  the  possible  or  probable 
design  in  giving  it  and  several  other  circumstances 
have  considerable  influence  in  fixing  the  decree  of 


Evidence  65 

credibility."  Evidence,  then,  should  as  far  as  possible 
be  consistent  with  ordinary  human  experience  and  the 
natural  course  of  affairs.  If  it  is  of  any  extraordinary 
nature,  its  credibility  must  be  shown  before  it  will  be 
of  value  or  effect. 

The  weakness  of  evidence  that  is  of  an  extraor- 
dinary nature  and  contrary  to  common  experience,  is 
exposed  in  the  following  selection  from  the  speech 
by  John  Henry  North  in  the  case  of  Rex  vs.  Forbes 
and  others.  Mr.  North's  client  was  charged  with 
committing  criminal  assault  upon  the  Lord-lieutenant 
of  Ireland.  Testimony  was  given  by  a  certain  Dr. 
M'Namara,  who  said  that  he  actually  saw  the  de- 
fendant hurl  a  bottle  at  the  Lord-lieutenant  in  a  public 
theatre.  Mr.  North  attacks  the  testimony  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

"  The  Doctor  in  the  middle  gallery  sees  Handwich  in  the 
third  row  of  the  upper  one,  though  between  them  there  were 
two  benches  covered  with  people,  and  the  boarded  para- 
pet in  front  of  the  upper  gallery  besides !  Through  all 
these  obstacles  he  sees  him  in  that  dark  corner  of  the 
gallery  where  he  represents  him  to  be  placed ;  sees  him 
fling  the  bottle,  and  is  now  able,  at  this  distance  of  time, 
to  identify  his  person.  The  bottle  itself  he  saw  in  what 
he  learnedly  calls  its  transit.  A  word  or  two  on  that  same 
transit.  I  hold  it  physically  impossible  that  a  bottle  could 
have  taken  the  course  described  by  Farrell  and  M'Namara, 
from  the  upper  gallery  to  the  stage,  without  being  ob- 
served by  four  or  five  hundred  spectators.  Just  think 
what  the  theatre  is  :  a  wide,  illuminated  area,  whose 
bounding  surfaces  are  studded  with  eyes  as  numerous  as 

F 


66    '  Argu7nentation  afid  Debate 

those  of  Argus.  Not  a  square  inch  in  that  field  of  view 
which  was  not  painted  on  the  retina  of  some  one  eye 
or  other  in  that  vast  assembly.  Consider,  too,  the  time 
—  the  interval  between  the  play  and  farce  —  when  the 
attention  of  the  audience  was  not  fixed  upon  the  stage, 
when  people  were  all  looking  about  them,  recognizing  and 
greeting  their  friends  and  acquaintances.  Was  there  no 
one  to  mark  this  bottle  but  Farrell,  M'Namara,  and  the 
young  medical  student  ?  What,  not  one  giggling  girl  in 
the  boxes,  glancing  round  for  admiration!  not  an  opera- 
glass  pointed  !  no  fortunate  observer  of  the  transit  but 
the  astronomer  from  Ballinakill !  Is  all  this  credible  ? 
But  this  is  not  all  —  voonders  upon  voonders,  as  the 
Dutchman  said  when  he  got  to  London  —  the  greatest 
miracle  is  to  come.  Down  comes  the  bottle,  thundering 
from  the  upper  gallery  to  the  stage,  and  falls  unbroken !  "  ^ 

(3)  Evidence  should  be  derived  from  zvitnesses  who 
can  testify  to  the  fact  from  their  own  personal  knowl- 
edge. 

This  is  the  rule  from  which  arises  the  rule  of  the 
law  courts  which  is  known  as  the  rule  of  ''hearsay 
evidence."  Hearsay  evidence  is  defined  by  Greenleaf 
as  "  that  kind  of  evidence  which  does  not  derive  its 
value  solely  from  the  credit  to  be  given  to  the  witness 
himself,  but  rests  also,  in  part,  on  the  veracity  and 
competency  of  some  other  person.  ...  Its  extrinsic 
weakness,  its  incompetency  to  satisfy  the  mind  as  to 
the  existence  of  the  fact,  and  the  frauds  that  may  be 
practised  under  its  cover  combine  to  support  the  rule, 
that  hearsay  evidence  is  totally  inadmissible."     Hear- 

>  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  659. 


Evidence  6y 

say  evidence,  in  brief,  is  the  evidence  of  persons  who 
testify  to  the  existence  of  some  fact,  on  the  ground 
that  they  have  been  informed  of  its  existence  by 
some  third  person. 

What  the  courts  exclude,  argumentation  elsewhere 
should  treat  with  suspicion.  Second-hand  evidence  is 
unconvincing.  The  testimony  is  too  many  stages  re- 
moved from  the  fact  itself.  An  audience  will  almost 
invariably  suspect  that  the  arguer  cannot  or  dare  not 
produce  the  original  authority.  Again,  it  is  too  easily 
overthrown.  If  any  witness  who  has  a  first-hand 
knowledge  can  be  brought  to  testify  to  any  fact  of  a 
contradictory  nature,  the  hearsay  testimony  is  immedi- 
ately brought  to  the  ground.  For  example,  in  en- 
deavoring to  prove  that  labor  unions  would  not  seek 
to  evade  compulsory  incorporation,  it  would  be  weak 
evidence  to  give  the  testimony  of  a  government 
official,  an  economist,  or  even  a  commissioner  of  labor. 
The  willingness  of  the  unions  to  be  incorporated  must 
be  proved  from  the  words  and  actions  of  the  labor 
leaders  themselves,  the  presidents  and  counsel  of  the 
workingmen's  organizations.  Theirs  are  the  only 
reliable  first-hand  statements. 

There  are  a  few  exceptions  to  this  rule  excluding 
hearsay  testimony :  such  as  evidence  of  general 
reputation,  public  rumor,  and  reputed  ownership  or 
holding  of  office.  Of  this  class  are  such  matters 
as  a  general  belief  in  a  community  that  a  man  and 
woman  are  married,  or  that  a  man  is  secretly  con- 
trolling the  political  officers  of  the  city  or  the  state. 


68  Argumentation  and  Debate 

But  even  then  the  evidence  is  really  first-hand,  because 
it  is  the  very  fact  of  public  rumor  and  conviction  that 
is  the  basis  and  material  of  the  argument.  And  even 
in  such  a  case,  the  burden  is  on  the  user  of  the  evi- 
dence to  show  that  it  is  trustworthy.  He  must  prove 
that  his  witnesses  are  honest  and  unprejudiced,  that 
they  were  in  a  position  to  know  the  prevailing  public 
sentiment,  and  he  must  show  that  their  opinion  is  wide- 
spread and  has  some  rational  foundation  of  truthful- 
ness. 

(4)  Evidence  must  be  consistent  with  all  the  known 
facts  of  the  case. 

The  necessity  is  evident  of  avoiding  contradiction 
between  different  pieces  of  evidence  presented  in  the 
proof.  Inconsistency  in  the  disputant  himself  is 
unpardonable.  Its  discovery  by  an  opponent  or  by 
the  audience  will  ruin  all  confidence  in  the  guilty 
person.  So,  when  Oppius  was  charged  with  defraud- 
ing the  soldiers  of  their  pensions,  Cicero  refuted  the 
charge  by  proving  that  the  same  persons  charged 
Oppius  with  a  design  to  corrupt  the  army  with  his 
extravagant  gifts  and  Hberahty. 

A  more  common  mistake  is  to  adduce  evidence 
that  is  contradicted  by  the  commonly  known  or  easily 
proved  facts  of  the  question.  A  few  years  ago  in  a 
trial  of  a  civil  suit  the  defendant  was  on  the  witness 
stand.  He  was  seeking  to  establish  an  alibi.  In  the 
course  of  his  testimony  he  was  asked  to  tell  of  all 
his  movements  and  doings  on  a  particular  day.  He 
told  of  several  purchases  he  had  made  in  the  stores 


Evidence  69 

of  the  city,  of  his  visit  to  a  barber's  shop,  and  of 
various  other  incidents.  When  his  testimony  was 
finished,  the  examining  lawyer  stated  the  simple  fact 
that  the  day  in  question  had  been  the  day  of  the 
observance  of  President  William  McKinley's  burial. 
Every  shop  and  store  had  been  closed.  The  testi- 
mony was  not  to  be  reconciled  with  the  facts  well 
known  to  the  judge  and  the  jury,  and  was  dis- 
credited. 

Webster  used  this  test  effectively  in  the  White 
murder  trial  to  overthrow  the  testimony  of  one  of 
the  witnesses  of  the  defence. 

"  Balch  says,  that  on  the  evening,  whenever  it  was,  he 
saw  the  prisoner ;  the  prisoner  told  him  he  was  going  out 
of  town  on  horseback,  for  a  distance  of  about  twenty 
minutes'  drive,  and  that  he  was  going  to  get  a  horse 
at  Osborn's.  This  was  about  seven  o'clock.  At  about 
nine,  Balch  says  he  saw  -the  prisoner  again,  and  was  then 
told  by  him  that  he  had  had  his  ride,  and  had  returned. 
Now  it  appears  by  Osborn's  books,  that  the  prisoner  had  a 
saddle-horse  from  his  stable,  not  on  Tuesday  evening,  the 
night  of  the  murder,  but  on  the  Saturday  evening  previous. 
This  fixes  the  time  about  which  these  young  men  testify, 
and  is  a  complete  answer  and  refutation  of  the  attempted 
alibi  on  Tuesday  evening."^ 

(5)  There  are  certain  kinds  of  evidence  that  are 
exceptionally  valuable. 

(a)  Admissions  and  declarations  against  interest. 
These  are  the  terms  given  in   the   courts   to  the 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  83.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


70  Argimientatiojt  and  Debate 

testimony  of  persons  contrary  to  what  their  own  con- 
cern in  the  cause  would  require.  It  is  there  regarded 
as  of  such  importance  that  second-hand  evidence 
of  such  statements  is  made  admissible,  contrary  to 
the  general  rule  excluding  all  hearsay  evidence.  Some- 
times the  admission  or  declaration  is  made  when  the 
person  is  aware  of  its  damaging  nature ;  sometimes, 
when  unaware.    The  value  of  it  needs  no  explanation. 

Such  testimony  is  ordinarily  reliable ;  but  there  are 
exceptions.  If  the  statement  is  made  by  a  person 
unconscious  of  its  effect  on  his  own  interests,  we 
must  be  sure  that  it  was  not  made  carelessly  or 
under  the  influence  of  an  intent  to  gain  some  other 
end.  If  it  is  a  deliberate  admission  or  confession, 
there  may  have  been  some  hope  of  re\yard  elsewhere 
that  led  the  witness  to  suffer  a  lesser  evil  for  a  greater 
gain ;  or  the  statement  may  have  been  given  under 
compulsion.  In  either  case  its  value  is  gone.  But  the 
presumption  is  always  in  favor  of  the  trustworthiness 
of  this  kind  of  evidence.  To  take  an  example:  a 
statement  by  any  "  protected "  manufacturer  that 
the  tariff  duties  were  too  high  —  if  such  a  thing  were 
possible  —  would  be  a  worthy  bit  of  evidence.  But 
if  it  could  be  proved  that  he  was  about  to  embark  in 
some  new  enterprise  where  the  tariff  could  not  help 
him,  that  his  purpose  was  the  destruction  of  some 
greater  rival,  or  that  he  was  in  the  hire  of  a  political 
manager,  its  force  would  be  destroyed. 

(b)    Undesigned  evidence. 

Undesigned  evidence  consists  of  testimony  given 


Evidence  71 

by  persons  who,  when  they  gave  it,  had  no  thought 
that  it  would  ever  be  used  as  evidence  in  the  case  in 
question.  Speaking  for  another  purpose,  a  person 
often  lets  fall  a  statement  that  is  merely  incidental. 
The  value  of  any  such  evidence  lies  in  its  freedom 
from  the  suspicion  of  any  hidden  motive.  It  is  in- 
genuous and  presumably  honest.  But  it  has  a  very 
serious  weakness.  The  testimony  may  well  have 
been  careless.  The  witness,  thinking  the  assertion 
of  slight  importance,  may  have  been  indifferent  as  to 
its  accuracy. 

Mr.  Webster,  in  the  following  selection  from  his 
argument  in  the  White  murder  trial,  enforced  the 
value  of  some  of  his  evidence  by  showing  that  it 
was  undesigned :  — 

"  Mr.  Southwick  swears  all  that  a  man  can  swear.  He 
has  the  best  means  of  judging  that  could  be  had  at  the 
time.  He  tells  you  that  he  left  his  father's  house  at  half- 
past  ten  o'clock,  and  as  he  passed  to  his  own  house  in  Brown 
Street,  he  saw  a  man  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the  ropewalk ; 
that  he  passed  him  three  times,  and  each  time  he  held 
down  his  head,  so  that  he  did  not  see  his  face.  That  the 
man  had  on  a  cloak,  which  was  not  wrapped  around  him, 
and  a  glazed  cap.  That  he  took  the  man  to  be  Frank 
Knapp  at  the  time  ;  that,  when  he  went  into  his  house,  he 
told  his  wife  that  he  thought  it  was  Frank  Knapp ;  that  he 
knew  him  well,  having  known  him  from  a  boy.  And  his 
wife  swears  that  he  did  so  tell  her  when  he  came  home. 
What  could  mislead  this  witness  at  the  time  ?  He  was 
not  then  suspecting  Frank  Knapp  of  anything.  He  could 
not  then  be  influenced  by  any  prejudice.      If  you  believe 


72.  Argumentation  and  Debate 

that  the  witness  saw  Frank  Knapp  in  this  position  at  this 
time,  it  proves  the  case."  ^ 

B.    Tests  of  the  sources  of  the  evidence. 

Evidence  which  seems  on  its  face  to  be  credible, 
consistent,  and  convincing  may  be  rendered  of  no 
account  by  an  exposure  of  weakness  in  the  source 
from  whence  it  comes.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
statements,  however  plausible,  are  mere  careless 
assertions  of  unreliable  persons,  or  that  the  testimony 
was  given  with  some  dishonest  motive,  its  value  is 
gone.  So  it  is 'always  necessary  in  selecting  one's 
own  proof  or  in  attacking  the  proof  of  an  opponent 
to  know  what  kinds  of  witnesses  make  good  evidence, 
and  what  kinds,  bad  evidence. 

(i)    The  kinds  of  evidence  with  respect  to  the  sources. 

Looked  at  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  sources  from 
whence  the  evidence  is  derived,  there  are  two  kinds 
of  evidence;  {a)  ordinary  evidence,  and  {b)  expert 
evidence.  There  are  certain  tests  that  may  be  ap- 
plied to  all  witnesses ;  these  are  the  tests  of  the 
sources  of  ordinary  evidence.  Then  the  examination 
of  the  class  of  witnesses  known  as  "  experts  "  demands 
the  application  of  certain  other  peculiar  tests. 

(2)    Tests  of  the  sources  of  ordinary  evidence. 

(a)  Physical  powers. 

Most  human  knowledge  comes  through  the  avenues 
of  the  five  senses,  and  it  is  from  the  information  so 

iThe  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  90.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  185 1. 


Evidence  73 

received  that  we  get  evidence.  Clearly,  then,  the 
physical  powers  of  a  witness  may  have  great  influence 
upon  his  reliabiHty.  If  a  witness  is  color-blind,  his 
testimony  that  green  signal  lights  were  displayed  at 
the  time  and  place  of  a  railroad  accident  must  be 
ignored.  However,  this  test  is  not  very  common  out- 
side of  the  court  room.  The  writers  that  furnish  the 
materials  of  student  debate  and  of  ordinary  disputa- 
tion everywhere  are  usually  beyond  the  reach  of  such 
examination,  and  their  testimony  is  not  commonly  of 
such  a  nature  that  it  makes  much  difference  whether 
they  are  blind,  or  deaf,  or  otherwise  unfortunate 
physically.  But  whenever  physical  weakness  may 
have  any  possible  effect  on  the  testimony,  the  test 
should  be  rigorously  applied.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
effective  of  all  possible  tests,  for  such  a  defect  in  a 
witness  is  conclusive  against  his  testimony. 

(b)  Mental  powers. 

More  important  for  the  purposes  of  general 
argumentation  than  the  test  of  physical  endowment 
is  the  test  of  mental  powers. 

(i)  Memory.  The  test  of  the  memory  of  a  witness 
is  applicable  everywhere.  In  the  courts,  it  is  a  part 
of  the  "  stock  in  trade "  of  a  cross-examiner.  In 
ordinary  disputation  it  is  less  common,  but  not  less 
significant.  A  defective  memory  is  damaging,  be- 
cause it  raises  a  strong  presumption  of  error  in  the 
statement  of  testimony.  If  the  witness  cannot 
remember  things  in  general,  it  is  probable  that  he 
cannot  clearly  remember  about  the  particular  fact  in 


74  Argumejitation  and  Debate 

question.     His   impressions  will   probably  be  vague 
and  indistinct,  and  so  his  statements  will  be  unreliable. 
In  the  White  murder  trial,  Webster  used  this  test 
in  attacking  a  witness  of  the  defence  :  — 

"  Mr.  Burchmore  says,  to  the  best  of  his  belief,  it  was 
the  evening  of  the  murder.  Afterwards  he  attempts  to 
speak  positively,  from  recollecting  that  he  mentioned  the 
circumstance  to  William  Peirce  as  he  went  to  Mineral 
Spring  on  Fast-day.  Last  Monday  morning  he  told 
Colonel  Putnam  he  could  not  fix  the  time.  This  witness 
stands  in  a  much  worse  plight  than  either  of  the  others. 
It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  all  he  has  said  with  any  belief 
in  the  accuracy  of  his  recollections."^ 

(2)  Accuracy  of  statement.  The  accurate  use  of 
words  and  phrases  is  not  by  any  means  universal. 
We  shall  treat  later  of  the  different  kinds  of  *'  liars  "  ; 
but  many  mistakes  of  verbal  expression  are  wholly 
undesigned.  Provincial  phrases,  personal  peculiari- 
ties in  speech,  a  tendency  toward  exaggeration,  may 
often  lead  a  witness  to  say  in  a  sentence  or  a  para- 
graph what  he  does  not  really  mean.  In  getting 
written  evidence,  to  avoid  the  mistake  of  misunder- 
standing the  witness,  the  real  import  of  the  testimony 
should  be  gathered  from  the  evidence  as  a  whole 
rather  than  from  the  exact  words  of  any  particular 
sentences.  The  phrases  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  context,  and  if  there  be  any  question  as 
to  their  rightful  meaning,  the  proper  interpretation 
should  be  explained  to  the  audience. 

iThe  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  83.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


Evidence  75 

Witnesses  who  are  habitually  inaccurate  must,  of 
course,  be  treated  with  suspicion.  There  are  many 
writers  whose  practice  it  is  to  deal  in  generalities  and 
bold  over-statements.  If  they  have  a  reputation 
for  that  style  of  writing,  their  testimony  is  of  almost 
no  value;  and,,  in  any  case,  their  credibility  is  liable 
to  question. 

c.    Opporttmity  for  the  observation  of  the  facts. 

This  is  an  obvious  but  not  unimportant  test.  If 
the  situation  or  experience  of  the  witness  has  been 
such  that  he  has  not  had  a  chance  to  observe  the' 
existence  of  the  facts  to  which  he  testifies,  and  to 
observe  them  closely  and  carefully,  his  statements  are 
clearly  untrustworthy.  In  the  courts  it  is  a  common 
method  of  impeaching  testimony  to  show  that  a 
witness  was  too  far  distant  from  the  scene  to  see 
clearly,  that  he  did  not  have  time  to  observe  carefully, 
that  he  did  not  arrive  in  season,  etc. 

This  test  is  no  less  important  in  other  kinds  of 
argumentation.  Innumerable  are  the  writers  who  are 
ready  to  venture  the  most  positive  statements  on  the 
foundation  of  a  few  weeks'  investigation,  or  who 
carelessly  make  bold  assertions  of  some  general 
truth,  when  they  have  observed  only  a  few  phenomena, 
and  when  those  they  have  observed  are  as  likely 
as  not  to  have  been  exceptional  or  sporadic  in 
nature.  If  is  not  uncommon  that  an  author  or  a 
traveller  visits  such  a  country  as  Russia  for  a  few 
months  or  a  year,  and,  on  his  return,  writes  articles 
or    a   book   on    Russian    society,    Russia's    political 


y6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

methods,  and  her  economic, prospects.  Now,  such  a 
man  is  not  to  be  criticised  for  writing  in  the  magazines 
or  pubHshing  a  book;  his  narrative  may  well  be 
interesting.  But,  as  evidence,  his  statements  and 
prophecies  generally  amount  to  nothing ;  Russian 
society  and  politics  cannot  be  analyzed  in  a  month. 
Again,  how  often  we  find  newspaper  writers  and 
pamphleteers  giving  the  most  emphatic  testimony  to 
defects  in  methods  of  colonial  administration  by  their 
own  government,  when  they  have  never  ventured 
beyond  the  borders  of  their  home  states.  Their 
earnestness  may  be  good  and  their  patriotism  com- 
mendable, but  their  testimony  is  worthless.  In  all 
such  cases  as  these  the  opportunities  for  observation 
are  insufficient  to  make  good  evidence. 

d.     Veracity  of  witiiesses. 

The  two  common  defects  in  the  truthfulness  of  a 
witness  are:  (i)  exaggeration,  and  (2)  deliberate  per- 
version of  the  truth. 

( I )  Exaggeration  may  be  accidental  or  intentional. 

Accidental  exaggeration  arises  from  habits  of  mind 
in  the  witness.  Some  men  have  an  irresistible  im- 
pulse to  "  make  things  big,"  like  Falstaff,  with  his 
**  eleven  men  in  buckram."  Intentional  exaggeration 
is  simply  one  kind  of  deliberate  lying. 

A  witness  who  exaggerates  can  best  be  exposed  by 
investigating  his  accuracy  in  other  instances.  Collins 
uses  this  test  in  his  argument  to  prove  that  Swift 
was  not  married  to  Esther  Johnson,  when,  in  speak- 
ing of  one  of  the  witnesses,  a  certain  Dr.  Madden, 


Evidence  77 

he  says :  "  Of  Madden  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  in 
temper  and  in  blood  he  was  half  French,  half  Irish ; 
and  that  as  a  writer  he  is  chiefly  known  as  the  author 
of  "a  work  wilder  and  more  absurd  than  the  wildest 
and  most  absurd  of  Whiston's  prophecies  and  Asgill's 
paradoxes."  If  a  witness  habitually  exaggerates, 
none  of  his  statements  can  be  accepted  at  their 
face  value. 

(2)  Deliberate  perversion  of  the  truth  implies  some 
motive. 

(a)  With  an  expert  the  motive  is  most  often  that 
of  pride.  One  expert  is  opposed  to  another  in  some 
court  trial  or  perhaps  on  some  economic  question. 
Each  feels  that  his  reputation  depends  on  the  over- 
throw of  his  rival.  Consequently,  though  they  may 
begin  with  the  most  honest  intentions,  they  yield  to 
the  demands  of  the  occasion,  their  testimony  degen- 
erates into  a  spirited  argument,  and  exaggeration 
and  misrepresentation  are  bred,  (b)  With  other  wit- 
nesses the  motive  is  some  interest  in  the  question 
at  issue.  They  feel  some  sympathy  with  the  parties 
most  deeply  involved  in  the  outcome,  or  they  them- 
selves have  some  interest  of  "office,  place,  and 
power." 

A  witness  must  be  tested  with  these  possible  weak- 
nesses in  view,  in  two  respects:  (i)  Is  he  interested 
in  the  outcome }  and  (2)  What  is  his  general  moral 
character }  This  second  test  is  significant,  because 
it  tells  us  to  what  extent  the  witness  would  permit 
unworthy  motives  to  influence  his  words.     A  reputa- 


yS  Argttmentatio7t  and  Debate 

tion  for  low  moral  character  in  a  witness  makes  his 
testimony  of  little  or  no  value. 

This  test  is  one  of  the  most  common  in  the  courts. 
Rufus  Choate  gave  a  good  illustration  of  its  effec- 
tiveness in  his  speech  in  the  Dalton  divorce  case. 
While  attacking  one  of  the  leading  witnesses  of  the 
plaintiff,  he  said  :  — 

"  I  begin,  therefore,  with  the  foundation  witness  in  this 
case,  John  H.  Coburn,  and  I  respectfully  submit  to  you, 
that  tried  by  every  test  of  credibility  which  the  law  recog- 
nizes, on  your  oaths  you  are  bound  to  disbelieve  him.  It 
is  not  that  a  laugh  can  be  raised  against  Coburn  or  his 
testimony  —  that  is  nothing ;  it  is  that,  according  to  those 
tests  which  are  founded  on  the  longest  and  widest  experi- 
ence the  law  deems  satisfactory  to  show  whether  a  jury 
can  safely  believe  or  not,  he  is  not  to  be  believed.  I  sub- 
mit, then,  that  John  H.  Coburn  is  not  an  honest  man,  and 
is  not,  therefore,  entitled  to  be  heard  in  so  delicate  a  work 
as  bringing  every  word  my  client  spoke  on  that  evening  to 
her  husband  ;  he  is  not  an  honest  man,  and  I  put  it  on  your 
solemn  oath  to  you,  that  there  is  not  a  man  on  that  jury  who, 
on  the  exhibition  of  John  H.  Coburn,  would  intrust  him  to 
carry  a  bundle  worth  five  dollars  from  this  courthouse  to 
the  depot."  1 

(3)    Tests  of  the  sources  of  expert  evidence. 

Expert  evidence  is  the  testimony  of  a  witness  who 
is  valuable  not  simply  because  he  can  testify  to  the 
existence  of  certain  facts  of  his  own  experience,  but 
because  he  possesses  the  peculiar  knowledge  of  a 
specialist,  which  enables  him  to  interpret  the  facts 

1 "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  307. 


Evidence  79 

that  are  presented  to  him.  The  ordinary  witness 
testifies  that  a  certain  alleged  fact  is  true  because 
he  actually  observed  it  to  be  so ;  the  expert  testifies 
that  the  same  alleged  fact  is  true  because  certain 
other  facts  exist,  and  his  peculiar  and  exceptional 
knowledge  justifies  him  in  inferring  the  existence 
of  the  fact  in  question. 

To  take  a  simple  illustration.  The  question  is 
whether  a  certain  man  who  was  shot  and  killed  wore 
a  certain  coat  on  the  day  of  the  murder.  The  ordi- 
nary witness  may  testify  that  he  saw  him  near  the 
place  of  the  murder  a  short  time  before  the  deed, 
and  that  he  was  wearing  the  coat  in  question.  The 
expert  finds  certain  stains  on  the  body  and  sleeve  of 
the  coat,  and  from  this  fact,  by  the  use  of  his  excep- 
tional knowledge  of  chemistry,  he  infers  that  the 
stains  are  blood  stains  and  freshly  made.  Clearly 
in  this  case  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  the 
expert  depends  upon  his  skill  in  chemical  analysis. 
This  is  always  the  primary  test  of  expert  evidence  : 
Is  the  witness  possessed  of  such  knowledge  that 
he  will  draw  the  correct  conclusions  from  the  facts 
presented  to  him  } 

In  general  argumentation  this  kind  of  evidence  is 
what  is  known  as  the  "  argument  from  authority." 
This  is  a  false  name,  for  it  is  not  properly  an  argu- 
ment, —  i.e.  a  process  of  reasoning,  —  but  evidence. 
This  so-called  "  argument  from  authority  "  consists  in 
establishing  a  fact  by  quoting  the  opinion  of  some 
person  whose  knowledge  is  such  as   to   justify  the 


8o  Argumentation  and  Debate 

acceptance  of  his  inferences  as  truthful.  In  theo- 
logical questions,  the  Bible  is  the  standard  source  of 
authority ;  in  politics,  the  writings  of  statesmen ;  in 
science,  the  conclusions  of  specialists  in  its  various 
departments.  In  discussing  the  question  whether 
the  independence  of  China  should  be  preserved,  the 
affirmative  might  well  quote  such  a  man  as  Sir  Rob- 
ert Hart,  to  show  that  the  Chinese  were  capable  of 
developing  a  righteous  and  effective  governmental 
system.  His  long  experience  in  dealing  with  the 
Oriental  races  and  his  connection  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  Chinese  political  affairs  had  given  him  an 
understanding  of  the  political  qualities  and  poten- 
tiaUties  of  the  race  that  justified  him  in  voicing  his 
prophecies  with  confidence.  His  statement  would  be 
good  "  authority." 

The  following  is  an  example  of  argument  from 
authority  from  the  speech  by  Patrick  Henry  on 
"  The  Right  of  a  State  during  the  Revolution  to  con- 
fiscate British  Debts."  In  seeking  to  prove  that  the 
confiscation  of  British  debts  is  warranted  by  neces- 
sity, he  says : — 

"  The  necessity  being  great  and  dreadful,  you  are  war- 
ranted to  lay  hold  of  every  atom  of  money  within  your 
reach,  especially  if  it  be  the  money  of  your  enemies.  It 
is  prudent  and  necessary  to  strengthen  yourselves  and 
weaken  your  enemies.  Vattel,  Book  3d^  ch.  8,  sec.  138, 
says :  '  The  business  of  a  just  war  being  to  suppress  vio- 
lence and  injustice,  it  gives  a  right  to  compel  by  force  him 
who  is  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice.  It  gives  a  right  of 
doing  against  the  enemy  whatever  is  necessary  for  weaken- 


Evidence  8 1 

ing  him,  for  disabling  him  from  making  any  further  re- 
sistance in  support  of  his  injustice,  and  the  mos^  effectual, 
the  most  proper  methods  may  be  chosen,  provided  they 
have  nothing  odious,  be  not  unlawful  in  themselves,  or 
exploded  by  the  law  of  nature.'  Here  let  me  pause  for 
a  moment  and  ask  whether  it  be  odious  in  itself  or 
exploded  by  the  law  of  nature  to  seize  those  debts  ?  "  ^ 

The  '* authority"  used  for  the  purposes  of  such 
exjDert  evidence  as  this  must  bear  two  special  tests : 
{a)  Is  the  w^itness  possessed  of  the  knowledge 
necessary  to  justify  his  acceptance  as  an  expert  in 
the  matter  in  question  ?  {b)  Is  his  authority  recog- 
nized by  the  audience  ?  However  great  the  knowl- 
edge or  skill  of  an  expert,  if  his  greatness  is  unknown 
to  the  hearer  or  reader,  the  effect  of  quoting  him 
will  be  a  mere  "  flash  in  the  pan."  The  audience  or 
reader  will  see  in  the  pretended  "authority"  nothing 
more  than  a  meaningless  name,  and  so  will  ignore  his 
statement.  The  disputant  must  always  be  sure  that 
the  worth  of  his  expert  is  accepted ;  and  if  there  may 
be  any  doubt,  his  first  duty  is  to  establish  for  him 
a  satisfactory  reputation. 

To  summarize :  — 

I.   Proof  is  composed  of  {A)  evidence  and  (B)  argu- 
ments. 
A.   Proof  is  the  name  used  to  designate  all  the 
means  which  serve  to  convince  the  mind 
of   the  truth   or   falsity  of   any  fact   or 
proposition. 

1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  13. 
G 


82  Argumentation  and  Debate 

B.  Evidence  consists  of  all  the  matters  of  fact 

that  may  be  used  in  the  generating  of 
proof. 

C.  An  argument  is  the  process  by  which  from 

knowing  one  fact  or  a  certain  number  of 
facts  we  infer  the  existence  of  other  facts. 
II.    Evidence  may  be  divided  into  :  — 

A.  Direct  evidence  and  indirect  or  circumstan- 

tial evidence. 

B.  Written  evidence  and  unwritten  evidence. 
III.   The  tests  of  evidence. 

A.  Tests  of  the  nature  of  the  evidence  itself. 

1.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  person 

who  originally  asserts  the  existence  of 
the  fact. 

2.  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  hu- 

man nature  and  human  experience. 

3.  Evidence  should  be   derived  from  wit- 

nesses who  can  testify  to  the  fact  from 
their  own  personal  knowledge. 

4.  Evidence  should  be  consistent  with  all 

the  known  facts  of  the  case. 

5.  Certain  kinds  of  evidence  are  especially 

valuable. 

a.  Admissions  and  declarations  against 

interest. 

b.  Undesigned  evidence. 

B.  Tests  of  the  sources  of  evidence. 

I.   There  are  two  kinds  of   evidence  clas- 
sified with  respect  to  their  sources  :  — 


Evidence  83 

a.  Ordinary  evidence. 

b.  Expert  evidence. 

2.  Tests  of  the  sources  of  ordinary  evidence. 

a.  Physical  powers  of  witnesses. 

b.  Mental  powers  of  witnesses. 
(i)  Memory. 

.     (2)  Accuracy  of  statement. 

c.  Opportunity  for  observation   of   the 

facts. 

d.  Veracity  of  witnesses, 
(i)  Exaggeration. 

(2)  Deliberate  perversion  of  the  truth 
is  due  to  :  — 
{a)  Interest  in  the  outcome  of  the 

controversy. 
(h)  Defective  moral  character. 

3.  Tests  of  sources  of  expert  evidence. 

a.  Is  the  witness  possessed  of  the  spe- 

cial knowledge  necessary  to  justify 
his  acceptance  as  an  expert } 

b.  Is   his    authority  recognized   by  the 

audience  or  reader  t 


CHAPTER   III 

KINDS  OF  ARGUMENTS 

There  is  a  distinct  difference  in  purpose  and 
method  between  argumentation  and  formal  logic. 
It  is  near  the  truth  to  say  that  formal  logic  is  the 
science  of  which  argumentation  is  the  corresponding 
art.  Logic  aims  merely  to  investigate  and  explain 
"the  operations  and  processes  of  thought."  "Its 
first  business  must  be  to  investigate  the  nature  of 
thought,"  as  it  is  actually  carried  on  in  the  human 
mind ;  but  it  makes  no  attempt  to  prescribe  any 
practical  rules  for  correct  thinking.  Argumentation, 
on  the  other  hand,  finds  only  a  secondary  interest 
in  scientific  logic,  its  purpose  being  to  make  prac- 
tical rules  and  suggestions  which  will  facilitate  cor- 
rect reasoning  and  the  producing  of  beliefs  in  the 
minds  of  others. 

This  difference  is  strongly  marked  in  the  methods 
employed  by  each  in  the  treatment  of  the  kinds  of 
arguments,  or,  as  the  term  is  in  logic,  of  "infer- 
ences." Logic  explains  the  different  ways  in  which 
the  mind  may  work  in  making  an  inference  or  rea- 
soning. In  argumentation  the  purpose  in  discuss- 
ing the  methods  of  inference,  or  "  the  kinds  of 
arguments,"  is  to  make  clear  the  rules  that  must  be 

84 


Kinds  of  Arguments  85 

followed  in  order  to  make  arguments  that  will  be  valu- 
able for  the  purpose  of  convincing  and  persuading 
others.  For  this  purpose  the  necessity  of  knowing 
the  various  kinds  of  arguments  that  may  be  used  is 
twofold:  it  is  necessary  (i)  in  order  to  be  able  to 
select  the  arguments  that  will  be  valuable  in  con- 
structing one's  own  proof,  and  (2)  in  order  to  be  able 
to  attack  the  proofs  of  an  opponent. 

Since  these  are  our  only  two  purposes,  little  atten- 
tion need  be  given  to  the  questions  of  what  kinds  of 
arguments  are  most  naturally  used,  or  in  what  forms 
these  arguments  are  generally  stated  or  explained. 
For  example,  the  causal  connection  in  many  argu- 
ments is  often  not  understood  by  the  person  making 
the  argument,  and  hence  inferences  from  cause  to 
effect  or  from  effect  to  cause  may  seem  to  be  com- 
paratively few  in  number.  Again,  in  many  instances 
where  the  causal  connection  is  understood,  it  is 
not  explained  in  the  statement  of  the  proof.  But 
these  facts  are  not  of  any  real  significance  for  our 
purposes.  In  order  to  be  able  to  select  good  argu- 
ments for  our  own  use,  and  in  order  to  be  able  to 
attack  the  weak  arguments  of  others,  however  others 
may  understand  them  and  however  they  may  be 
stated,  we  must  know  what  it  is  in  the  arguments 
that  makes  them  strong  or  weak. 

Nearly  all  writers  on  the  subject  of  rhetoric  have 
divided  the  kinds  of  arguments  into  three  classes, 
and  have  given  to  these  classes  the  names,  antece- 
dent  probability,   sign,   and   example.      The   mean- 


86  Argumentation  and  Debate 

ings  given  to  these  titles  and  the  classifications  made 
under  them  have  been  various  and  confused,  so  that 
there  is  practically  no  definite  and  accepted  division. 
Any  division  which  shall  be  of  service  in  argumenta- 
tion must  have  for  its  purpose  the  establishment  of 
standards  by  which  we  may  determine  whether  any 
particular  arguments  are  good  or  bad,  strong  or  weak, 
as  the  materials  of  proof.  Consequently,  in  order 
to  give  a  practical  insight  into  the  proper  selection 
and  use  of  arguments  in  argumentation,  and  a  prac- 
tical power  to  detect  the  most  serious  fallacies, 
the  kinds  of  arguments  should  be  classified  and 
explained  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  clear,  as  far  as 
possible,  on  what  the  strength  of  the  various  kinds  of 
arguments  depends. 

We  have  seen  that  an  argument  is  a  process  by 
which,  from  knowing  the  existence  of  a  fact  or  a 
certain  number  of  facts,  we  infer  the  existence  of 
some  other  fact  or  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  it  should  be  stated  that  in 
nearly  every  argument  the  validity  of  the  inference 
depends  upon  a  connection  of  cause  and  effect  be- 
tween the  facts  from  which  we  infer  and  the  facts  to 
which  we  infer.  This  causal  connection  is  not  always 
actually  understood  by  the  person  making  the  argu- 
ment, and  is  often  not  stated.  But  this  connection 
is,  nevertheless,  in  most  cases,  the  source  of  strength 
or  weakness  in  the  reasoning.  It  must  be  under- 
stood in  order  to  know  the  real  force  of  the  argument 
and  detect  the  fallacies  of   opponents.      "Whether 


Kiiids  of  Arguments  87 

the  given  inference  be  right  or  wrong,  whether  it  be 
express  and  deliberate,  or  rapid  and  free,  whether  it 
take  the  form  of  a  cut-and-dried  syllogism,  an  argu- 
ment from  analogy,  or  from  circumstantial  evidence, 
in  all  cases  equally  it  is  our  belief  about  the  way 
things  hang  together  in  nature  that  provides  aHke 
the  sole  motive  power  of  inference  and  the  sole 
foundation  on  which  we  rest  our  proof."  ^  However, 
there  are  many  vahd  arguments  in  which  this  causal 
connection  is  not  evident,  and  in  these  cases  it  must 
also  be  determined  what  is  the  element  of  their 
strength. 

The  lines  of  division  between  the  classes  of  argu- 
ments cannot  always  be  drawn  with  absolute  distinct- 
ness. Many  arguments  with  slight  changes  in  phrase 
pass  from  one  class  to  another.  But  this  is  wholly 
immaterial :  the  classes  and  names  are  nothing  in 
themselves.  It  is  the  understanding  of  the  structure 
and  substance  of  the  arguments  that  is  essential. 

I.   Antecedent  Probability 

The  argument  from  antecedent  probability  is  an 
argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  argument  from 
antecedent  probability  requires  a  preliminary  as- 
sumption; it  is  said  that  the  argument  consists  in 
assuming  the  existence  of  some  fact  and  then  pro- 
ducing  evidence    to    show    that   the    assumption    is 

1  Sidgwick,  "  The  Process  of  Argument,"  p.  46. 


S8  ArgiLmentatio7i  and  Debate 

justified.  This  is  not  true.  Very  often  it  is  con- 
venient  in  presenting  or  explaining  the  argument  to 
make  such  an  assumption.  As,  for  instance,  in  a 
criminal  trial,  a  lawyer,  when  he  is  arguing  before 
the  jury,  may  assume  for  the  time  that  A  murdered 
B,  and  then  go  on  to  show  that  A  had  a  motive. 
This  is  an  argument  from  antecedent  probability, 
but  the  assumption  made  by  the  lawyer  is  not  an 
essential  part  of  the  argument.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness  he  may  first  show  that  A's  pistol  was  found 
beside  the  body,  and  present  various  other  kinds  of 
evidence,  to  create  a  presumption  of  guilt  against  A, 
before  he  discusses  his  motives.  Such  a  method  is 
obviously  more  sensible  than  examining  the  possible 
motives  of  all  the  persons  who  might  possibly  have 
committed  the  crime,  especially  since  the  lawyer  is 
hired  to  prosecute  this  particular  man,  A.  Moreover, 
the  effect  on  the  jury  is  helped  by  the  corroboration 
of  other  kinds  of  arguments,  the  arguments  from 
sign  in  this  case.  But  this  assumption  is  not  essen- 
tial. The  strength  of  the  argument  itself  depends 
entirely  upon  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect 
between  the  motive  and  the  deed.  The  argument 
is  conclusive  if  it  can  be  shown  that  these  motives 
of  A  were  the  cause  that  would  produce  the 
effect  in  question,  viz.,  the  murder  of  B ;  and  its 
validity  will  vary  with  the  strength  of  this  causal 
connection. 

The  argument  from  antecedent  probability,  then, 
is  an  inference  from  a  known  cause  to  an  unknown 


Kinds  of  Arginnents  89 

effect;  it  consists  in  showing  that  a  certain  known 
fact  or  combination  of  facts  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
bring  to  pass  the  existence  of  another  fact,  whose 
existence  is  in  dispute. 

For  example,  in  the  famous  White  murder  trial, 
Daniel  Webster  showed  that  the  Knapps  believed  they 
could  get  Captain  White's  fortune  by  murdering  him 
and  stealing  his  last  will,  and  then  argued  that  this 
motive  was  the  cause  that  produced  the  effect  in 
question,  viz.,  their  murder  of  Captain  White.  Again, 
if  one  of  the  larger  universities  of  the  country  is 
known  and  acknowledged  to  have  a  very  strong 
foot-ball  team,  it  is  an  argument  from  antecedent 
probability  to  infer  that  this  team  will  defeat  a  team 
from  some  small  college  of  two  or  three  hundred 
students.  It  is  inferred  that  the  known  cause  —  the 
strength  of  the  university  team  —  will  produce  the 
effect  of  a  victory  over  a  weaker  rival.  A  good 
illustration  of  this  kind  of  argument  is  found  in  the 
following  selection  from  a  speech  given  at  a  National 
Democratic  Convention  to  account  for  hard  times 
under  a  Democratic  administration  :  — 

"  When  the  Democracy  came  into  power  in  1893  it 
inherited  from  its  Republican  predecessor  a  tax  system 
and  currency,  a  system  of  which  the  McKinley  and  Sher- 
man laws  were  the  culminating  atrocities.  It  came  into 
power  amidst  a  panic  which  followed  upon  their  enact- 
ment with  strikes,  lockouts,  riots,  civil  commotions,  while 
scenes  of  peaceful  industry  in  Pennsylvania  had  become 
military  camps.  Besides  its  manifest  features,  the 
McKinley  law  had  thrown  away  fifty  millions  of  revenue 


90  Argumentation  and  Debate 

derived  from  sugar  under  a  special  plea  of  a  free  break- 
fast table,  and  substituted  bounties  to  sugar  planters,  thus 
increasing  expenditure,  thus  burning  the  candle  at  both 
ends  and  making  the  people  pay  at  last  for  their  alleged 
free  breakfast. 

"  From  the  joint  operation  of  the  McKinley  law  and 
the  Sherman  law,  an  adverse  balance  of  trade  was  forced 
against  us  in  1893,  a  surplus  of  $100,000,000  in  the 
treasury  was  converted  into  a  deficit  of  $70,000,000  in 
1894;  and  engraved  bonds  prepared  by  a  Republican 
secretary  to  borrow  money  to  support  the  Government 
were  ill  omens  of  preorganized  ruin  that  awaited  the  com- 
ing Democracy  and  depleted  treasury." 

The  orator  argues  that  these  acts  of  Republican 
maladministration  were  the  causes  that  produced  the 
effect  of  hard  times. 

It  may  be  noticed  that  in  many  such  instances  the 
argument  from  cause  to  effect  is  preceded  by  a  sort  of 
preliminary  argument  from  effect  to  cause.  Before 
we  argue  that  the  strength  of  the  foot-ball  team  will 
be  the  cause  of  victory,  we  may  prove  that  the  team 
is  strong  by  showing  that  it  has  won  victories  over 
other  teams  in  the  past.  This  is  an  inference  from 
effect  —  the  past  victories  —  to  cause  —  the  strength 
of  the  team.  But  this  is  not  the  important  part  of 
the  inference.  The  strength  of  the  team  is  not  really 
the  question ;  it  is  in  this  case  generally  admitted.  If, 
however,  the  abilities  of  the  team  are  questioned  and 
must  first  be  proved  by  showing  past  evidences  of 
their  achievements,  the  argument  thus  becomes  more 
truly  an  argument  from  certain  known  effects  of  a 


Kinds  of  Alignments  91 

given  cause  to  other  effects  of  the  same  cause,  i.e.  an 
argument  from  sign.  As  has  already  been  remarked, 
the  Hnes  of  division  between  the  classes  are  not 
definite. 

An  argument  from  antecedent  probability  may  be 
attacked  in  several  ways,  but  they  are  all  the  same  in 
that  they  are  all  directed  toward  the  destruction  of 
the  connection  between  cause  and  effect.  In  order 
to  be  conclusive,  the  argument  must  show  that  the 
known  or  proved  fact  would  necessarily  act  as  a  cause 
to  produce  the  effect ;  and  it  is  here  that  the  argument 
is  best  attacked. 

The  following  are  the  most  effective  methods  of 
refuting  this  argument. 

( I )   Is  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect  complete  ? 

The  two  facts,  one  of  which  is  called  the  cause  and 
the  other,  the  effect,  are  rarely  in  immediate  connection 
with  each  other.  There  are  almost  always  several  inter- 
mediate steps  between  the  two.  "  Intermediate  links 
in  a  chain  of  causation  are  so  many  opportunities  for 
counteraction,  in  the  same  way  as  a  length  of  rail- 
way provides  opportunities  for  an  accident.  They 
are  intermediate  conditions.  The  pull  on  the  trigger 
will  fire  the  shot  if,  and  only  if,  the  catch,  the  spring, 
the  hammer,  the  cap,  and  so  on,  all  act  in  the  expected 
manner.  Therefore  our  f orgetfulness  of  intermediate 
links  takes  effect  just  in  the  same  way  as  our  f orget- 
fulness of  conditions  generally  ;  it  may  give  us  a  false 
security." 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  closer  the  causal  connec- 


92  Argumentation  and  Debate 

tion,  the  surer  is  the  argument,  and  that  any  argument 
may  be  destroyed  by  showing  that  some  of  the  nec- 
essary intermediate  Hnks  are  lacking.  It  might  be 
proved  that  A  was  inspired  with  a  most  malevolent 
hatred  of  B,  that  he  would  welcome  any  favorable 
opportunity  of  attacking  him,  even  that  he  had 
actually  sought  to  do  him  injury  ;  but  in  order  to  con- 
nect this  motive  with  the  murder  of  B,  it  must  be 
shown  that  none  of  the  necessary  intermediate  steps 
were  lacking.  It  must  be  proved  that  A  was  present 
at  the  time,  that  he  had  the  necessary  weapon,  that 
he  was  physically  strong  enough  to  do  the  deed. 
The  destruction  of  one  of  these  links  destroys  the 
argument. 

(2)  Is  the  caitse  adequate  to  produce  the  effect  in 
qicestio7t  ? 

It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  any  number  of  facts 
that  might  possibly  follow  from  the  existence  of 
some  other  fact.  But  such  connections  are  not 
always  sufficient  to  make  a  valid  argument.  It  is 
not  sufficient  that  a  fact  might  have  a  general  ten- 
dency to  produce  a  certain  effect.  It  must  be 
shown  that  the  assumed  cause  is  in  itself  adequate 
to  account  for  the  existence  of  the  effect  in  question. 

Ex-Governor  Black  of  New  York,  in  the  trial  of 
Roland  B.  Molineux  for  the  murder  of  Mrs.  Adams, 
used  this  test  when,  in  speaking  of  the  motives 
assigned  by  the  prosecution  as  the  cause  of  the  mur- 
der, he  said :  "  They  have  failed  utterly  to  supply  a 
motive.     It  is  absurd  to  suggest  that  out  of  a  mere 


Kinds  of  Argiiments  93 

quarrel  such  as  Cornish  and  Molineux  had,  should 
grow  a  hatred  so  profound  as  to  inspire  a  man  twelve 
months  later  to  commit  murder." 

In  1893  the  so-called  "hard  times"  from  1892  to 
1896  were  said  by  some  people  to  have  been  caused 
solely  by  the  unexpected  failure  of  a  prominent  EngHsh 
banking  house.  The  failure  in  question  might  have 
been  a  startling  incident  of  the  day,  it  might  perhaps 
have  precipitated  failures  and  misfortune  elsewhere  ; 
but  it  was  clearly  no  adequate  cause  for  such  a  wide- 
spread and  prolonged  misfortune. 

(3)  The  operation  of  other  causes  in  the  case  in  ques- 
tion may  prevent  the  action  of  the  assumed  catise. 

The  chain  of  connection  between  the  cause,  and 
the  effect  is  most  often  impaired  by  the  intervention 
of  some  other  cause  which  destroys  some  of  the 
connecting  links.  If  a  man  takes  a  dose  of  deadly 
poison,  the  chances  are  that  it  will  cause  his  death ; 
but  it  may  be  shown  that  this  effect  will  not  actually 
follow  in  this  case,  by  showing  that  the  man  took  an 
antidote.  The  antidote  causes  the  expulsion  of  the 
poison  from  the  system  and  prevents  the  occurrence 
of  the  natural  effect. 

One  may  argue  that  the  Chinese  race  are  very 
numerous,  that  as  a  people  they  are  physically  formi- 
dable, that  they  are  peculiarly  fortunate  in  climate 
and  in  economic  resources,  and,  consequently,  that 
there  is  great  danger  of  a  commercial  "  Yellow 
Peril."  This  is  a  clear  inference  from  cause  to  effect. 
But  his  argument  may  be  attacked,  by  showing  that 


94  Argumentation  and  Debate 

certain  racial  peculiarities  of  the  Chinese  prevent 
them  from  being  aggressive  competitors,  and  make 
them  thus  incapable  of  the  powers  of  initiative  and 
self-advancement  necessary  for  independent  commer- 
cial progress  as  a  race.  The  operation  of  this  second 
cause  will  destroy  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect 
on  which  the  argument  depends. 

(4)  Might  not  the  fact  in  question  be  accounted  for 
by  the  action  of  some  other  cause  ? 

Very  often  the  argument  from  antecedent  prob- 
ability is  used  to  account  for  the  existence  of  some 
particular  phenomenon.  It  is  human  nature  to  wish 
to  know  the  cause  of  any  alleged  fact.  If  you  say 
something  is  true,  somebody  immediately  wants  to 
know  why  it  is  natural  that  it  should  be  true.  To 
recur  to  the  example  of  the  criminal,  if  a  lawyer 
tries  to  account  for  a  robbery,  he  must  show  that  his 
explanation  of  it  is  natural  and  reasonable.  So  he 
tries  to  show  that  the  man  he  is  prosecuting  had  a 
motive  for  committing  the  crime. 

In  attempting  to  overthrow  such  an  argument,  it 
may  not  be  sufficient  to  show  that  the  connection  of 
cause  and  effect  is  weak.  A  weak  cause  is  better 
than  no  cause  at  all.  Consequently,  it  is  necessary 
to  substitute  some  other  argument  from  cause  to 
effect  for  the  argument  that  has  been  attacked.  The 
causal  connection  that  seems  the  more  reasonable 
will  be  accepted  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. 

For  example,  in  the  Molineux  trial  the  defence 
attacked  the  argument   of  the   prosecution  to  show 


Kinds  of  Arguments  95 

that  the  defendant  had  a  motive  that  caused  him 
to  commit  the  murder  in  question,  by  producing 
evidence  to  show  that  another  man  concerned  in 
the  case  had  stronger  motives  and  consequently 
that  it  was  no  more  rational  to  accuse  the  defendant 
than  it  was  to  accuse  this  man. 

In  refuting  arguments  from  antecedent  probabil- 
ity the  rhetorical  treatment  may  take  various  forms, 
but  the  analysis  of  the  argument  is  always  the 
same ;  the  attack  is  always  directed  toward  one 
point,  —  the  connection  between  cause  and  effect. 

II.    Arguments  from  Sign 

The  argument  from  sign  is,  in  general,  what  the 
name  implies.  It  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  two 
certain  facts  will  always  or  usually  accompany  each 
other,  and  that  consequently  the  presence  of  one  will  be 
a  sign  of  the  presence  of  the  other.  As  in  the  argument 
from  antecedent  probability,  most  arguments  from  sign 
depend  for  their  validity  upon  a  causal  connection ; 
but  we  shall  also  find  that  there  is  a  class  of  argu- 
ments from  sign  in  which  this  causal  connection  is 
not  fully  understood,  or,  at  least,  is  hard  to  trace. 
Arguments  of  this  last-mentioned  class  depend  for 
their  strength  upon  the  fact  of  an  invariable  associ- 
ation in  the  past  between  the  facts  in  question. 

For  convenience,  the  arguments  from  sign  may  be 
divided  into  three  classes  : — 

A.  Arguments  from  effect  to  cause. 


96  Argicrnentation  and  Debate 

B.  Arguments  from  one  effect  to  another  effect  of 
the  same  cause. 

C.  Arguments  from  the  association  of  phenomena  in 
the  past 

A.   Arguments  from  effect  to  cause. 

The  most  necessary  and  inevitable  accompaniment 
of  any  fact  is  its  cause.  Consequently  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  any  alleged  fact  whose  existence  we  wish 
to  prove  is  or  was  the  cause  of  any  known  fact,  the 
proof  of  this  alleged  fact  is  indisputable.  When  we 
see  ice,  we  safely  conclude  that  the  temperature  has 
been  below  a  certain  point ;  and  the  argument  is 
beyond  dispute,  because  it  is  only  a  certain  degree 
of  coldness  that  will  freeze  water. 

William  Seward  argued  from  effect  to  cause  in  the 
following  part  of  his  defence  of  William  Freeman. 
Freeman  was  on  trial  for  murder,  and  Seward's 
defence  was  that  of  insanity  on  the  part  of  the 
prisoner :  — 

"  There  is  proof,  gentlemen,  stronger  than  all  this.  It 
is  silent,  yet  speaking.  It  is  that  idiotic  smile  which  plays 
continually  on  the  face  of  the  maniac.  It  took  its  seat 
there  while  he  was  in  the  State  prison.  In  his  solitary 
cell,  under  the  pressure  of  his  severe  tasks  and  trials  in 
the  workshop,  and  during  the  solemnities  of  public  worship 
in  the  chapel,  it  appealed,  although  in  vain,  to  his  task- 
masters and  his  teachers.  It  is  a  smile,  never  rising 
into  laughter  —  without  motive  or  cause  —  the  smile  of 
vacuity.  .  .  . 

"  That  chaotic  smile  is  the  external  derangement  which 
signifies  that  the  strings  of  the  harp  are  disordered  and 


Kinds  of  Arguments  97 

broken,  the  superficial  mark  which  God  has  set  upon  the 
tabernacle  to  signify  that  its  immortal  tenant  is  disturbed 
by  a  divine  and  mysterious  commandment.  If  you  cannot 
see  it,  take  heed  that  the  obstruction  of  your  vision  be  not 
produced  by  the  mote  in  your  own  eye,  which  you  are 
commanded  to  remove  before  you  consider  the  beam  in 
your  brother's  eye.  If  you  are  bent  on  rejecting  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  know,  by  experience  and  by  science, 
the  deep  afflictions  of  the  prisoner,  beware  how  you  mis- 
interpret the  handwriting  of  the  Almighty."^ 

A  number  of  years  ago,  in  Yorkshire,  England,  a 
traveller,  having  in  his  pocket  certain  marked  coins, 
w^as  attacked  in  the  early  evening,  murdered,  and 
robbed.  The  following  day  coins  of  this  peculiar 
stamp  were  found  on  the  person  of  a  certain  man- 
servant* at  an  inn  in  the  vicinity.  This  servant  was 
unable  to  account  for  his  possession  of  the  money, 
and  on  this  evidence  he  was  tried,  convicted,  and 
hanged.  This  was  a  clear  argument  from  sign  — 
from  effect  to  cause.  It  was  argued  that  his  posses- 
sion of  the  coins  was  the  effect  of  his  taking  them 
from  the  body  of  the  murdered  man  on  the  evening 
before. 

But  several  years  after  it  was  found  that  the  con- 
viction was  a  mistake.  The  keeper  of  the  inn  con- 
fessed that  he  himself  committed  the  murder  and,  in 
order  to  transfer  the  guilt,  got  his  servant  intoxicated 
and  put  the  coins  into  his  pocket.  The  argument 
from  sign  was  fallacious,  because  the  effect  in  ques- 
tion was  the  result  of  another  cause  than  that  assumed. 

1  Works  of  William  H.  Seward,  Vol.  I,  p.  468. 
H 


98  Argiunentatioji  and  Debate 

This  example  of  the  robbery  illustrates  the  most 
common  weakness  of  the  argument  from  effect  to 
cause  and  suggests  the  way  in  which  it  may  best  be 
refuted. 

( 1 )  May  not  the  knozvn  effect  be  due  to  some  other 
cause  than  the  o?ie  alleged? 

A  mariner  at  night  seeing  lights  ahead  infers  that 
a  ship  or  a  lighthouse  is  at  hand.  But  his  inference 
may  be  sadly  false.  The  lights  may  be  set  or  manipu- 
lated on  shore  with  the  purpose  to  mislead  him  and 
profit  by  the  wreck  of  his  ship.  Again  it  is  argued 
that  Shakespeare  must  have  written  the  works  attrib- 
uted to  him,  because  he  was  credited  with  their 
authorship  all  through  his  life.  It  is  said  that  this  effect 
must  have  been  due  to  the  cause,  that  he  did  'actually 
write  the  works.  But  those  who  oppose  this  view 
attack  the  argument  by  showing  that  the  popular  be- 
lief may  be  attributed  to  other  good  causes,  —  to  the 
comparative  lack  of  interest  in  the  authorship  at  the 
time,  or  the  desire  of  the  real  author  to  conceal  his 
identity,  —  and  so,  that  the  reputation  is  no  sure  sign 
of  authorship. 

(2)  Is  the  alleged  cause  capable  of  being  the  real 
cause  of  the  effect  in  question  ? 

We  may  also  attack  the  argument  directly,  in 
much  the  same  way  that  we  would  attack  the  argu- 
ment from  antecedent  probability,  by  showing  that 
the  cause  which  it  is  alleged  produced  the  known 
effect  was  really  not  adequate  to  produce  it.  But  it 
must  be  observed  that  this  alone  is  not  sufficient  to 


Kinds  of  Arguments  99 

destroy  the  argument.  Although  this  phenomenon 
might  not  in  itself  have  been  a  sufficient  cause,  other 
causes  might  have  cooperated  with  it  in  producing  the 
effect,  and  so  the  known  effect  may  still  be  a  sign  of 
this  alleged  cause.  To  make  the  refutation  complete, 
it  must  be  shown  that  these  other  causes,  whose  coop- 
eration was  necessary,  did  not  exist. 

There  are  many  other  devices  that  may  be  invented 
and  employed  in  different  cases,  which  are  too  numer- 
ous or  complicated  to  be  explained  here.  The  fore- 
going are  the  most  common  and  effective  tests ;  and  of 
the  other  tests  it  may  be  remarked  that  they  are  all 
directed  to  destroy  the  causal  connection,  and  that 
they  may  be  readily  invented  if  the  nature  of  this 
inference  from  effect  to  cause  is  understood. 

B.  Arguments  from  one  effect  to  another  effect  of 
the  same  cause. 

The  second  class  of  the  arguments  from  sign  in- 
volves a  process  of  inference  that  is,  in  a  sense,  a 
combination  of  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect 
and  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause.  This  second 
class  consists  of  arguments  that  are  an  inference  from 
a  known  effect  of  some  unknown  cause  to  the  exist- 
ence of  another  effect  of  the  same  cause. 

A  certain  fact  or  combination  of  facts  is  known  to 
exist.  From  the  existence  of  this  known  fact  the  exist- 
ence is  inferred  of  another  fact  which  is  alleged  to  be 
its  cause  —  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause.  Then  a 
second  step  is  taken ;  it  is  inferred  that  this  cause 
produces  another  effect,  this  second  unknown  effect 


ICX)  Argumentation  and  Debate 

being  the  fact  which  it  is  the  aim  of  the  argument  to 
prove. 

To  illustrate  by  a  diagram  :  — 


Effect  Effect 


The  effect  A  is  known,  i.e.  it  is  admitted  or  it  has 
been  established  by  evidence ;  but  it  is  not  known 
what  was  or  is  its  cause.  From  this  known  effect  is 
inferred  by  process  number  I  (argument  from  effect 
to  cause)  the  existence  of  X,  which  is  alleged  to  be  its 
cause.  Then  by  process  number  II  (argument  from 
cause  to  effect)  is  inferred  the  existence  of  F,  which 
is  alleged  to  be  another  effect  of  the  cause  X.  The 
argument  seeks  to  prove  Fas  an  inference  from  A^ 
and  in  doing  so  it  passes  through  the  connecting 
cause  X, 

In  the  evening  we  observe  a  redness  of  the  sky, 
and  we  argue  that  there  will  be  fair  weather  the  next 
day.  It  is  an  argument  from  effect  to  effect.  The 
redness  is  due  to  certain  atmospheric  conditions,  and 
these  conditions  are  such  that  they  will  produce  fair 
weather.  We  argue  that  a  certain  man  will  succeed 
as  the  president  of  a  corporation.  We  first  point  to 
his  success  in  other  enterprises  requiring  executive 
skill  and  creative  power;  from  them  we  infer  their 
cause,  his  abilities,  and  then  reason  that  these  abili- 


Kinds  of  Arguments  lOi 

ties  will  produce  their  effect,  viz.,  success  in  his  new 
undertaking. 

The  following  illustration  is  taken  from  the  speech 
of  David  Paul  Brown  in  defence  of  Alexander  Will- 
iam Holmes  (before  the  Circuit  Court  in  Philadelphia, 
in  1832).  A  vessel  was  wrecked,  and,  in  order  to 
save  as  many  as  possible  of  the  passengers,  orders 
were  given  to  throw  overboard  a  part  of  them.  The 
defendant  obeyed  the  order  and  threw  certain  men 
over  the  side  of  the  ship  into  the  water.  He  was 
tried  for  murder,  and  Mr.  Brown  is  here  arguing  to 
show  that  the  defendant  acted  in  good  faith  and  with 
right  motives.     He  said :  — 

"  I  am  strengthened  in  this  position  by  the  indisputable 
fact  that  Holmes,  the  prisoner,  during  the  whole  voyage, 
was  upon  the  kindest  and  most  harmonious  terms  with  all 
the  passengers ;  that  he  preserved  the  same  friendly  rela- 
tion to  them  after  the  loss  of  the  ship  ;  that  he  had  perilled 
his  Hfe  more  than  once  to  preserve  them ;  that  he  has 
literally  stripped  himself  of  his  apparel  for  their  comfort ; 
in  short,  his  desire  to  save  them  seemed  to  absorb  all  con- 
sideration of  mere  personal  or  individual  safety.  In  these 
circumstances,  to  suppose  anything  cruel  or  wanton  upon 
his  part  is  to  run  counter  to  everything  that  is  possible  or 
natural.  I  infer,  therefore,  that  he  supposed  the  peril  to 
be  imminent  and  instantaneous,  or  he  never  would  have 
complied  with  the  orders  of  the  mate.  ...  I  maintain, 
therefore,  that  the  most  favorable  construction  is  to  be 
placed  upon  his  motives ;  and  it  is  justly  to  be  inferred 
that  he  acted  upon  the  impression  that  the  danger  was 
imminent,  and  that  death  was  inevitable  to  all,  except  by 
resorting  to  those  means  which  he  actually  adopted.  .  .  . 


102  Argumentation  and  Debate 

But  even  taking  all  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  for  the 
prosecution,  highly  colored — I  will  not  say  discolored  — 
as  they  are,  and  torture  them  as  you  may,  it  is  irhpossible 
for  you  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion  than  that  Holmes 
was  actuated  by  the  kindest  and  most  generous  influences  ; 
and  certainly  I  need  not  say  that  kindness  and  generosity 
are  opposed  to  wantonness  and  barbarity."^ 

He  argues  that  the  former  actions  of  Holmes  were 
the  evidences  of  their  cause,  viz.,  his  sincere  interest 
for  the  welfare  of  the  passengers,  and  then  argues 
that  this  cause  produced  the  effect  in  question,  his 
honesty  of  motive  in  this  particular  instance. 

In  a  great  part  of  the  arguments  of  this  class  it  is 
noticeable  that  more  than  one  effect  is  usually  ad- 
duced to  prove  the  existence  of  the  cause,  each  effect 
giving  added  evidence  of  the  single  cause  alleged. 

The  points  of  weakness  in  this  kind  of  argument 
are  evident.  It  is  a  combination  of  the  two  foregoing 
arguments,  —  from  sign  and  from  antecedent  proba- 
bility;  and  if  either  one  of  these  component  inferences 
is  defective  or  can  be  attacked,  the  whole  argument 
is  destroyed.  Referring  to  the  diagram  given  above, 
the  argument  can  be  attacked  in  either  leg  of  the 
triangle.  The  tests  are,  therefore,  the  tests  already 
given  for  the  arguments  from  cause  to  effect  and 
from  effect  to  cause. 

For  example,  the  argument  of  Mr.  Brown  might 
be  attacked  at  two  points.  It  might  be  shown  that 
the  effects  he  mentioned  —  his  relations  with  the  pas- 

1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  143-144. 


Kinds  of  Arguments  1 03 

sengers  and  his  apparent  solicitude  in  their  behalf, 
etc.  —  might  not  really  be  due  to  the  alleged  cause, 
viz.,  his  interest  for  their  welfare,  but  to  another 
cause  —  perhaps  his  desire  to  win  favor  or  pecuniary 
gain.  Again  it  might  be  attacked  (test  number  3,  of 
arguments  from  antecedent  probability)  by  granting 
the  sincerity  of  his  motives  in  general,  but  showing 
that  certain  circumstances  peculiar  to  this  particular 
case  prevented  the  natural  operation  of  the  cause. 
Perhaps  the  defendant  was  so  fearful  for  his  own  life 
that  his  usual  honesty  was  put  aside  and  he  acted 
selfishly  or  maliciously. 

The  argument  from  effect  to  effect  is,  perhaps,  not 
so  common  as  the  arguments  from  cause  to  effect,  or 
from  effect  to  cause.  These  two  arguments  are  more 
commonly  used  separately,  than  in  combination  as 
the  argument  from  effect  to  effect. 

C.  Arguments  from  the  association  of  phenomena 
in  the  past. 

The  third  class  of  arguments  from  sign  is  com- 
posed of  arguments  based  upon  the  past  association 
of  facts  or  phenomena.  Two  phenomena  have  been 
observed  to  happen  together  so  many  times  in  the 
past  as  to  seem  to  justify  the  belief  that  they  will 
accompany  one  another  in  the  future.  So  when  one 
of  the  facts  or  phenomena  is  observed  to  be  present 
in  any  particular  case,  it  is  inferred  that  the  other 
also  is  present.  In  such  arguments  the  causal  rela- 
tion is  not  readily  understood  or  explained,  although 
it  undoubtedly  exists. 


104  Argumentation  and  Debate 

We  may  infer  that  any  ruminating  animal  has 
cloven  hoofs ;  conversely,  we  may  infer  that  any  ani- 
mal with  cloven  hoofs  is  a  ruminant.  These  infer- 
ences are  reasonably  safe  because  in  most  cases  the 
two  characteristics  have  been  found  to  exist  together, 
although  scientists  do  not  understand  the  exact  nature 
of  the  connection.  The  argument  about  ruminant 
animals  depends  on  the  fact  that  the  concurrence  of 
the  two  phenomena  seldom  fails.  In  some  cases  the 
rule  has  been  broken;  the  pig  and  the  tapir,  for 
illustration,  have  cloven  hoofs,  but  are  not  ruminants  : 
consequently,  the  convincingness  of  the  argument  is 
weakened,  and  any  considerable  number  of  exceptions 
would  make  it  valueless. 

It  is,  then,  clear  where  the  argument  may  be  open 
to  attack.  The  habit  of  hasty,  unreasoning  generali- 
zation is  very  common.  In  many  debates  this  very 
fallacy  is  predominant.  A  speaker  or  writer  cites  a 
few  instances  of  the  concurrence  of  two  facts  in  the 
past  and  argues  that  because  they  have  happened 
together  in  the  past,  they  must  happen  together  in  the 
present  instance.  Really,  what  he  has  established  is, 
that  they  may  happen  together ;  he  has  proved  noth- 
ing, and  his  attempts  may  be  rendered  null  either  by 
(i)  pointing  out  that  the  cases  are  too  few  to  establish 
a  law  of  concurrence,  or,  better,  (2)  by  producing 
definite  examples  where  the  one  phenomenon  has 
occurred  without  the  other. 

Arguments  of  this  kind  are  rare,  and  clearly  they 
must  from  their  nature  be  of  doubtful  value.     The  co- 


Kinds  of  ArgiLinents  105 

existence  of  the  two  facts  in  past  instances  is  not 
shown  to  be  anything  more  than  mere  accident,  and 
chance  is  at  best  a  weak  foundation  on  which  to  base 
an  inference.  The  argument  gathers  its  force  wholly 
from  the  frequency  of  the  past  concurrence  of  the 
phenomena.  In  order  to  approach  conclusiveness  we 
must  have:  (i)  a  very  large  number  of  cases  of  the 
observed  concurrence  of  the  facts  or  phenomena,  and 
(2)  complete  uniformity  in  the  operation  of  the  rule, 
that  when  one  occurs  the  other  accompanies  it. 

III.    The  Argument  from  Example 

The  third  and  last  division  of  the  kinds  of  argu- 
ments is  composed  of  those  which  depend  for  their 
strength  upon  the  resemblance  between  the  case  in 
question  and  some  other  case  or  cases,  which  are  ad- 
duced either  as  analogous  in  nature  to  this  particular 
case,  or  as  estabUshing  some  general  law  that  is  ap- 
plicable to  it. 

There  are  two  classes  of  arguments  from  example, 
which  may  be  called,  respectively,  (A)  the  argument 
by  generalization,  and  (B)  the  argument  from  analogy. 

A.    The  argument  by  generalization. 

In  arguments  of  this  kind  we  "consider  one  or 
more  known  individual  objects  or  instances  of  a 
certain  class  as  fair  specimens,  in  respect  of  some 
point  or  other,  of  that  class ;  and  consequently  draw 
an  inference  from  them  respecting  either  the  whole 
class  or  other  less  known  individuals  of  it."  ^ 

^  Whately,  "  Elements  of  Rhetoric,"  p.  52. 


io6  Arzurn'cntation  mid  Debate 


^> 


The  following  from  Burke's  "Speech  on  Concilia- 
tion" is  an  illustration  of  an  inference  from  indi- 
vidual instances  to  a  truth  respecting  the  whole  class 
to  which  they  belong  :  — 

"  In  large  bodies,  the  circulation  of  power  must  be  less 
vigorous  at  the  extremities.  Nature  has  said  it.  The 
Turk  cannot  govern  Egypt,  and  Arabia,  and  Curdistan, 
as  he  governs  Thrace ;  nor  has  he  the  same  dominion  in 
Crimea  and  Algiers,  which  he  has  at  Brusa  and  Smyrna. 
Despotism  itself  is  obliged  to  truck  and  huckster.  The 
Sultan  gets  such  obedience  as  he  can.  He  governs  with  a 
loose  rein,  that  he  may  govern  at  all ;  and  the  whole  of  the 
force  and  vigor  of  his  authority  in  his  centre  is  derived 
from  a  prudent  relaxation  in  all  his  borders.  Spain,  in 
her  provinces,  is,  perhaps,  not  so  well  obeyed  as  you  in 
yours.  She  complies  too,  she  submits,  she  watches  times. 
This  is  the  immutable  condition,  the  eternal  law,  of  ex- 
tensive and  detached  empire." 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  his  opinion  delivered  in 
the  case  of  McCulloch  vs.  Maryland,  used  the  argu- 
ment by  generalization  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  power  of  creating  a  corporation,  though  apper- 
taining to  sovereignty,  is  not,  like  the  power  of  making 
war  or  levying  taxes  or  of  regulating  commerce,  a  great 
substantive  and  independent  power,  which  cannot  be 
implied  as  incidental  to  other  powers,  or  used  as  a  means 
of  executing  them.  It  is  never  the  end  for  which  other 
powers  are  exercised,  but  a  means  by  which  other  objects 
are  accomplished.  No  contributions  are  made  to  charity 
for  the  sake  of  an  incorporation,  but  a  corporation  is  cre- 
ated to  administer  the  charity ;  no  seminary  of  learning  is 

2  Burke's  Speeches,  p.  87.    James  Dufify,  London,  1871. 


Kinds  of  Arguments  107 

instituted  in  order  to  be  incorporated,  but  the  corporate 
character  is  conferred  to  subserve  the  purposes  of  educa- 
tion. No  city  was  ever  built  with  the  sole  object  of  being 
incorporated,  but  is  incorporated  as  affording  the  best 
means  of  being  well  governed.  The  power  of  creating  a 
corporation  is  never  used  for  its  own  sake,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  effecting  something  else." 

In  the  following,  Channing,  arguing  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  the  slaves  are  evils  and  should  be  done 
away  with,  infers  from  individual  instances  of  a  class 
to  "  another  less  known  individual  of  it "  :  — 

"  Allow  that  the  sufferings  of  the  slave  are  less  than 
those  of  the  free  laborer.  But  the  sufferings  are  Wrongs, 
and  this  changes  their  nature.  Pain  as  pain  is  nothing 
compared  with  pain  when  it  is  wrong.  A  blow,  given  me 
by  accident,  may  fell  me  to  the  earth  ;  but,  after  all,  it  is  a 
trifle.  A  slight  blow,  inflicted  in  scorn  or  with  injurious 
intent,  is  an  evil,  which,  without  aid  from  my  principles,  I 
could  not  bear.  Let  God's  providence  confine  me  to  my 
room  by  disease,  and  I  more  than  submit,  for  in  his  dis- 
pensations I  see  parental  goodness  seeking  my  purity  and 
peace.  But  let  man  imprison  me,  without  inflicting  dis- 
ease, and  how  intolerable  my  narrow  bounds.  So  if  the 
elements  take  away  our  property,  we  resign  it  without  a 
murmur ;  but  if  a  man  rob  us  of  our  fortune,  poverty 
weighs  on  us  ^s  a  mountain.  Anything  can  be  borne  but 
the  will  and  the  power  of  the  selfish,  unrighteous  man.  .  .  . 

''  My  hostility  to  the  system  does  not  rest  primarily  on 
the  physical  agonies  it  inflicts,  but  on  a  deeper  foundation  : 
on  its  flagrant  injustice,  and  on  the  misery  necessarily 
involved  in  a  system  of  wrong."  ^ 

1  Channing's  Works,  Vol.  V,  pp.  37-39.     G.  G.  Channing,  Boston, 

1849. 


io8  Argumentation  and  Debate 

He  adduces  examples  to  prove  the  general  truth 
that,  regardless  of  the  pain  it  inflicts,  injustice  or 
wrong  always  creates  an  evil,  and  then  applies  this 
general  truth  to  the  instance  of  slavery,  so  proving 
that  slavery  is  an  evil. 

B.   The  argument  from  analogy. 

In  arguments  from  analogy  we  compare  two  or 
more  objects  or  instances  which  are  not  alike  hi 
themselves^  but  which  are  alike  in  the  relations  they 
bear  to  other  facts  or  circumstances ^  and  infer  that 
something  true  of  the  objects  in  the  one  class  is  true 
of  the  object  or  objects  in  the  other. 

"  Thus  an  ^gg  and  a  seed,"  says  Whately,  "  are 
not  in  themselves  alike,  but  bear  a  like  relation  to  the 
parent  bird  and  to  her  future  nestling,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  the  old  and  young  plant  on  the  other, 
respectively,  this  relation  being  the  genus  which  both 
fall  under:  and  many  arguments  might  be  drawn 
from  this   analogy." 

Lincoln  argued  from  analogy  when,  in  reply  to 
politicians  advising  him  to  change  generals  at  a  cer- 
tain time  during  the  Civil  War,  he  said  he  didn't 
think  it  wise  to  "swap  horses  while  crossing  a 
stream."  He  did  not  imply  that  the  horse  and  gen- 
eral had  similar  qualities  of  body  or  of  mind.  They 
were  not  alike  in  themselves ;  but  they  bore  the  same 
relations,  respectively,  to  the  crossing  of  the  stream 
and  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  in  so  far  as 
this  similarity  of  relation  applied  the  argument  was 
valid. 


Kinds  of  Arguments  109 

The  following  is  an  illustration  from  Reid's  "  In- 
tellectual Powers  "  :  — 

"  We  may  observe  a  very  great  similitude  between  this 
earth  which  we  inhabit  and  the  other  planets,  —  Saturn, 
Jupiter,  Mars,  Venus,  and  Mercury.  They  all  revolve 
round  the  sun,  as  the  earth  does,  although  at  different  dis- 
tances and  in  different  periods.  They  borrow  all  their 
light  from  the  sun,  as  the  earth  does.  Several  of  them  are 
known  to  revolve  round  their  axis  like  the  earth,  and  by 
that  means  have  like  succession  of  day  and  night.  Some 
of  them  have  moons  that  serve  to  give  them  light  in  the 
absence  of  the  sun,  as  our  moon  does  to  us.  They  are  all, 
in  their  motions,  subject  to  the  same  law  of  gravitation  as 
the  earth  is.  From  all  this  similitude  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  think  that  these  planets  may,  like  our  earth,  be  the 
habitation  of  various  orders  of  living  creatures.  There 
is  some  probability  in  this  conclusion  from  analogy." 

The  distinction  between  these  two  kinds  of  argu- 
ments from  example,  viz.,  the  argument  by  generali- 
zation and  the  argument  from  analogy,  is  a  distinction 
that  may  easily  become  distorted,  unless  it  be  kept 
clearly  in  mind  that  generalization  involves  a  direct 
comparison  of  the  objects  compared,  whereas  anal- 
ogy involves  a  comparison  of  the  relations  the  ob- 
jects bear  to  other  objects  or  circumstances.  The 
word  "analogy  "  has  so  many  different  meanings -given 
to  it  in  ordinary  conversation  that  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  term  is  often  misused  in  this  connection. 

We  see  a  round,  yellow  ball ;  it  has  a  certain  pecul- 
iar feeling  as  we  pick  it  up.  We  conclude  it  is  an 
orange  and  will  have  a  certain  flavor.     This  is  not  an 


no  Argiimentatio7i  and  Debate 

argument  from  analogy,  but  an  argument  by  gener- 
alization. In  a  number  of  other  instances  in  our  past 
experience  we  have  found  that  objects  that  look  and 
feel  as  this  one  does  have  had  a  certain  flavor  and 
have  been  called  by  this  certain  name.  By  a  direct 
comparison  of  these  attributes  we  have  formed  the 
generalization  that  all  objects  of  this  feeling  and 
appearance  are  oranges ;  we  apply  the  generalization 
to  this  "  unknown  individual "  of  the  class  and  argue 
that  it  is  an  orange. 

In  the  argument  from  example,  as  in  the  other  two 
classes  of  arguments,  the  connection  of  cause  and 
effect  is  present.  The  difference  is,  that  in  the  other 
classes  the  inference  is  directly  from  cause  to  effect, 
or  effect  to  cause,  whereas  in  this  class  the  inference 
depends  upon  a  comparison  of  causes  and  effects. 
In  the  argument  from  antecedent  probability  we 
argue  that  certain  known  facts  are  of  such  a  kind 
that  they  must  from  their  very  Jiature  produce  a  cer- 
tain effect.  In  the  argument  from  example  we 
argue  that  certain  known  facts  will  be  the  cause  of  a 
certain  effect  because  they  are  similar  to  certain  other 
facts  which  have  been  the  cause  of  a  similar  effect  in 
the  past.  If  the  facts  that  we  pronounce  as  "exam- 
ples "  have  happened  to  follow  one  another  in  the 
past  merely  by  accident,  then  no  amount  of  compari- 
son can  prove  anything  more  than  that  similar  facts 
may  happen  together  in  the  future  by  accident ;  the 
comparison  cannot  give  valid  grounds  for  a  belief 
that  they  certainly  will  follow   one   another.     The 


Kinds  of  Arguments  iii 

causal  connection  must  be  present  in  order  to  make 
the  argument  true. 

There  are,  then,  clearly  two  points  of  possible 
weakness  in  the  argument  from  example :  — 

(i)  The  causal  connection  in  the  "  examples  "  'inay  be 
defective^  or — 

(2)  The  resemblance  between  the  ^^ examples''  and  the 
instance  in  dispute  may  not  be  a  true  resemblance. 

(i)  The  tests  of  the  causal  connections  have  been 
given  in  the  treatment  of  the  other  classes  of  argu- 
ments. 

(2)  In  order  to  give  grounds  for  a  valid  argument, 
it  is  important,  not  that  the  resemblances  are  many, 
but  that  they  are  such  as  to  bear  directly  upon  the 
argument.  Horses  and  generals  are  not  alike  in  their 
relations,  in  many  ways ;  but  Lincoln's  argument  de- 
rives its  force  from  the  fact  that  the  two  are  similar 
in  the  relation  that  is  important  to  the  argument. 

"Caesar  had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I  his  Cromwell, 
and  George  III  may  profit  by  their  example." 
Caesar  was  very  unlike  Charles  I  in  most  of  his 
personal  qualities;  he  ruled  a  different  country, 
in  a  different  age.  George  III  was  the  very  oppo- 
site of  the  Roman  in  temper  and  character;  his 
people,  his  advisers,  his  century,  were  not  similar 
to  those  of  either  of  the  men  cited  as  "examples." 
But  the  three  cases  were  similar  in  the  essential 
element:  Caesar,  Charles  I,  and  George  III  all  repre- 
sented the  pressure  of  tyranny  upon  a  spirited,  liberty- 
loving   people.      In    each   case   oppression   was   the 


112  Argumentatioji  and  Debate 

cause  of  the  effect,  rebellion;  and  whatever  other 
differences  there  may  be  in  the  circumstances,  the 
causes  are  similar  in  nature.  Such  an  argument  only 
emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  causal  connection  is 
essential  in  this  class  of  arguments,  and  that  the 
similitude  between  the  instances  is  a  similitude  of 
causes  and  effects. 

We  often  hear  it  argued  that  men  and  nations  are 
alike  in  certain  particulars,  and  that  consequently 
nations  must  have  youth,  manhood,  old  age,  and 
decay.  The  argument  is  not  valid,  because  the  re- 
semblance is  not  a  resemblance  that  has  any  bearing 
on  the  argument.  Men  and  nations  are  alike  in  their 
moral  responsibilities ;  for  both,  self-indulgence  or 
misjudged  action  brings  its  punishment;  for  both,  the 
same  intellectual  qualities  may  bring  success.  But 
they  are  not  alike  in  the  one  essential  point,  viz., 
physical  organization. 

In  discussions  about  institutions  of  government 
this  fallacy  is  common.  For  instance,  advocates  of 
the  election  of  the  President  of  France  by  direct  vote 
of  the  people  urge  that,  since  this  method  has  given 
us  an  efficient  executive  in  this  Republic,  it  would 
produce  like  good  results  in  the  French  Republic. 
In  many  respects  the  circumstances  in  the  two  coun- 
tries are  parallel ;  but  how  great  are  the  differences ! 
The  peoples  of  the  two  nations  are  unlike  in  race  and 
temperament.  The  American  people  are  substan- 
tially of  English  stock,  conservative,  long  trained  in 
the  practices  of  popular  government,  appreciative  of 


Kinds  of  Arguments  113 

the  value  of  republican  institutions,  and  firm  in  their 
defence  of  the  principles  of  democracy.  The  French 
people,  on  the  other  hand,  are  emotional  and  im- 
pulsive, prone  to  change  and  revolution,  and  their 
political  ideals  are  impregnated  with  traditions  of 
monarchy  and  empire.  Then  again,  the  success  of 
this  method  of  election  in  the  United  States  depends 
largely  upon  the  system  of  "  checks  and  balances," 
which  is  so  finely  organized  in  our  written  Constitu- 
tion ;  whereas  France  has  no  stable  constitution,  no 
Supreme  Court  capable  of  preserving  the  balance  of 
power  between  the  legislature  and  the  executive,  and 
indeed,  the  whole  government  seems  to  be  parlia- 
mentary in  principle.  So  that  such  a  popular  election 
in  France  would  involve  various  dangers  and  complica- 
tions impossible,  or  at  least  improbable,  in  the  United 
States,  and  would  undoubtedly  lead  to  seriously  differ- 
ent consequences.  The  analogy,  therefore,  is  not  a 
true  one,  and  the  argument  has  little,  if  any,  validity. 

In  arguing  by  generalization,  (i)  the  resemblance 
between  the  cases  given  as  examples  must  be  such 
as  to  justify  the  making  of  a  general  law  concerning 
them,  and  (2)  the  case  in  question  must  be  such  that 
the  general  law  is  applicable  to  it. 

In  the  argument  by  analogy,  the  case  or  cases 
given  as  examples  must  resemble  the  case  in  question, 
in  the  relations  which  they  respectively  bear  to  sur- 
rounding facts  or  circumstances. 

And  finally,  in  both  arguments,  the  resemblances  must 
be  such  as  to  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  argument. 


CHAPTER   IV 

FALLACIES 

A  COMPLETE  classification  of  all  the  possible  falla- 
cies of  inference  is  hardly  practicable.  The  human 
mind  is  capable  of  too  much  error  to  allow  even  a 
mention  of  all  the  logical  sins  it  may  perpetrate.  But 
in  the  development  of  the  science  of  formal  logic  the 
more  common  and  flagrant  breaches  of  valid  reason- 
ing have  been  searched  out  and  exposed.  Those  fal- 
lacies which  are  said  to  exist  "  not  in  the  form  but  in 
the  matter —  those  which  have  their  source  in  equivo- 
cation and  presumption — are  called  material  falla- 
cies." Of  these  so-called  "  material  fallacies "  the 
more  important  for  purposes  of  argumentation  are  as 
follows :  — 

I.    False  cause. 
II.    Ambiguous  terms. 

III.  Composition  and  division. 

IV.  Ignoring  the  question,  or  arguing  beside  the 
point. 

V.    Begging  the  question. 

I.  False  Cause 

Fallacies  of  this  class  are  all  fallacies  of  defective 
causal  connection   between   the  things   from  which 

114 


Fallacies  1 1 5. 

and  to  which  we  argue,  and  the  various  methods  that 
may  be  used  in  exposing  them  have  been  fully  dis- 
cussed in  the  preceding  chapter.  One  kind  of  falla- 
cies, however,  belonging  to  this  class,  deserves  special 
mention, — post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoCy  usually  called 
simply  post  hoc.  Of  all  forms  of  fallacies  arising 
from  false  cause,  this  is  probably  the  most  common 
and  the  most  insidious.  The  fallacy  consists  in  as- 
suming that  because  one  occurrence  precedes  another 
in  time,  the  one  is  the  cause  of  the  other.  Many  of 
the  common  superstitions  of  ancient  and  of  modern 
times  illustrate  this  fallacy.  For  instance,  thirteen 
people  sit  at  table  together,  and  within  a  few  months 
one  of  the  number  is  accidentally  drowned ;  immedi- 
ately some  one  argues  that  the  death  is  the  effect  of 
the  thirteen  sitting  at  meat  together. 

Again,  it  has  recently  been  argued  that,  because 
the  number  of  crimes  perpetrated  by  negroes  in  the 
Southern  states  has  increased  since  educational  op- 
portunities were  first  offered  to  the  negro,  therefore 
the  growth  of  crime  is  directly  due  to  the  growth 
of  education.  It  certainly  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
arguer  to  base  his  contention  simply  on  the  fact 
that  the  one  thing  has  followed  the  other,  and  few 
thoughtful  men  will  be  inclined  to  accept  the  conclu- 
sion thus  drawn.  Until  something  more  is  done  to 
show  a  definite  causal  connection,  we  may  safely  call 
this  2ipost  hoc  fallacy. 

The  most  common  form  of  this  fallacy,  perhaps,  is 
that  used  by  the  poUtical  arguer.     It  runs  something 


ii6  Argumentation  ajtd  Debate 

like  this :  Such  and  such  a  political  party  came  into 
power  at  such  a  time,  and  for  a  number  of  years 
thereafter  the  country  suffered  from  financial  depres- 
sion ;  therefore  the  policies  and  administration  of  this 
political  party  are  the  cause  of  the  unfortunate  state 
of  affairs.  Now,  the  statement  may  or  may  not  be 
true,  but  the  argument  in  the  above  form  certainly 
contains  a  fallacy.  To  show  that  this  fallacy  does 
exist,  and  that  the  conclusion  is  not  worthy  of  accept- 
ance, it  is  necessary  only  to  point  out  the  fact  that 
any  one  of  a  half  dozen  other  causes  might,  at  least 
as  readily,  have  produced  the  same  result. 

An  illustration  from  a  current  periodical  will 
make  clear  the  commonness  of  this  class  of  falla- 
cies, and  will  also  suggest  the  care  that  is  necessary 
to  guard  against  them.  In  Harper  s  Weekly  for 
March  5,  1904,  the  editors  noted  the  fact  that  various 
college  presidents  had  estimated  that  "the  college 
graduate  has  one  chance  in  forty  of  *  succeeding  in 
life,'  whereas  the  man  who  hasn't  been  to  college  has 
only  one  chance  in  ten  thousand."  The  inference 
naturally  drawn  from  this  statement  is  that  the  mere 
fact  that  a  man  secures  a  college  education  multi- 
plies many  times  his  chances  for  success.  To  this 
inference  and  to  the  possible  fallacy  that  may  lurk 
therein  the  editorial  in  question  addresses  itself  as 
follows :  — 

"  Not  many  persons  doubt  any  longer  that  an  American 
college  education  is  an  advantage  to  most  youths  who  can 
get  it,  but  in  these  attempts  to  estimate  statistically  what 


Fallacies  wj 

college  education  does  for  men  there  is  a  good  deal  of  con- 
fusing of  post  hoc  and  propter  hoc.  Define  success  as  you 
will,  a  much  larger  proportion  of  American  college  men 
win  it  than  of  men  who  don't  go  to  college,  but  how  much 
college  training  does  for  those  successful  men  is  still  de- 
batable. Remember  they  are  a  picked  lot,  the  likeliest 
children  of  parents  whose  ability  or  desire  to  send  their 
children  to  college  is  evidence  of  better  fortune,  or  at  least 
of  higher  aspirations  than  the  average.  And  because  their 
parents  are,  as  a  rule,  more  or  less  prosperous  and  well 
educated,  they  get  and  would  get,  whether  they  went  to 
college  or  not,  a  better  than  average  start  in  life.  In 
order  to  make  an  estimate  that  would  be  really  fair  of 
what  college  does  for  boys,  it  would  be  necessary  to  com- 
pare the  fortunes  of  two  groups  of  boys  from  something 
like  the  same  rank  of  life  and  of  something  like  equal 
ability,  one  a  college-taught  group  and  the  other  not.  But 
that  cannot  well  be  done.  The  colleges  get  the  likeliest 
boys.  If  one  boy  out  of  a  family  of  four  goes  to  col- 
lege, it  is  the  clever  one.  The  boys  who  might  go  to 
college  and  don't  are  commonly  the  lazy  ones  who  won't 
study.  The  colleges  get  nowadays  a  large  proportion  of 
the  best  boys  of  the  strongest  families.  The  best  boys 
of  the  strongest  families  would  win  far  more  than  their 
proportionate  share  of  success  even  if  there  were  no 
colleges." 

The  surest  ways  of  determining  what  constitutes  a 
valid  causal  connection  have  been  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  The  principles  there  enunciated  are 
set  forth  by  Mill  in  categorical  form  in  his  so-called 
"  Five  Canons."  These  rules  are  slightly  modified  by 
Professor  Jevons,  and  are  quoted  from  his  "  Lessons 
in  Logic  "  as  follows  :  — 


ii8  Argumentation  aiid  Debate 

"  I.   Method  of  agreement. 

"  If  two  or  more  instances  of  the  phenomenon  under 
investigation  have  only  one  circumstance  in  common,  the 
circumstance  in  which  alone  all  the  instances  agree  is  the 
cause  (or  effect)  of  the  given  phenomenon,  i.e.  the  sole 
invariable  a7itecedent  of  a  phe7iomefion  is  probably  its  cause. 

"2.   Method  of  difference. 

"If  an  instance  in  which  the  phenomenon  under  in- 
vestigation occurs,  and  an  instance  in  which  it  does  not 
occur,  have  every  circumstance  in  common  save  one,  that 
one  occurring  only  in  the  former,  the  circumstance  in  which 
alone  the  two  instances  differ  is  the  effect,  or  the  cause,  or 
an  indispensable  part  of  the  cause,  of  the  phenomenon. 

"  3.   Joint  method. 

"  If  two  or  more  instances  in  which  the  phenomenon 
occurs  have  only  one  circumstance  in  common,  while  two 
or  more  instances  in  which  it  does  not  occur  have  nothing 
in  common  save  the  absence  of  that  circumstance,  the  cir- 
cumstance in  which  alone  the  two  sets  of  instances  (always 
or  invariably)  differ  is  the  effect  or  the  cause,  or  an  indis- 
pensable part  of  the  cause,  of  the  phenomenon. 

"  4.   Method  of  residues. 

"  Subduct  from  any  phenomenon  such  part  as  is  known 
by  previous  inductions  to  be  the  effect  of  certain  antece- 
dents, and  the  residue  of  the  phenomenon  is  the  effect  of 
the  remaining  antecedents. 

"5.    Method  of  concomitant  variations. 

"  Whatever  phenomenon  varies  in  any  manner  whenever 
another  phenomenon  varies  in  some  particular  manner,  is 
either  a  cause  or  an  effect  of  that  phenomenon,  or  is  con- 
nected with  it  through  some  fact  of  causation." 


Fallacies  1 19 

II.  Ambiguous  Terms 

This  fallacy  consists  in  confusing  the  meaning  of 
words  or  phrases  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  to  unsound 
reasoning.     Such  fallacies  may  arise  in  many  ways. 

{a)  We  may  confuse  the  etymological  meaning  and 
the  common  meaning  of  a  word;  as,  for  instance, 
the  sophistical  argument  often  founded  on  the  word 
"representative." 

"  Perhaps  no  example  of  this  can  be  found  that  is  more 
extensively  and  mischievously  employed  than  in  the  case  of 
the  word  '  representative.'  Assuming  that  its  right  meaning 
must  correspond  exactly  with  the  strict  and  original  sense 
of  the  verb  '  represent,'  the  sophist  persuades  the  multi- 
tude that  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  bound  to 
be  guided  in  all  points  by  the  opinion  of  his  constituents ; 
and,  in  short,  to  be  merely  spokesman :  whereas  law  and 
custom,  which  in  this  case  may  be  considered  as  fixing  the 
meaning  of  the  term,  require  no  such  thing,  but  enjoin 
the  representative  to  act  according  to  the  best  of  his  own 
judgment,  and  on  his  own  responsibility."^ 

(J?)  We  may  confuse  two  or  more  common  mean- 
ings of  the  same  word,  where  the  word  has  different 
meanings  in  different  circumstances.  The  word 
"  democratic "  in  one  connection  is  the  name  of  a 
political  party;  in  another  it  designates  a  body  of 
political  and  social  ideas  and  principles.  So  we 
argue  falsely :  all  Americans  should  be  democratic ; 
consequently  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  The  word 
"  church  "  may  mean  the  whole  body  of  believers,  or 

1  Mill,  "  System  of  Logic,"  p.  503. 


120  Argumentation  and  Debate 

it  may  mean  the  officers  of  this  body,  viz.,  the  clergy ; 
and  many  false  arguments  and  beliefs  are  based  on 
the  confusion. 

There  are  many  other  sources  of  confusion  from 
ambiguity  in  terms.  Their  variety  and  frequency  only 
emphasizes  the  necessity  of  careful  definition.  Defi- 
nition is  thq  weapon  before  which  all  ambiguity  must 
fall. 

III.  Composition  and  Division 

The  fallacy  of  composition  arises  "  when  we  affirm 
something  to  be  true  of  a  whole,  which  holds  true 
only  of  one  or  more  of  its  parts  when  taken  sepa- 
rately or  distributively."  It  is  sometimes  argued,  for 
instance,  that  because  a  large  number  of  those  com- 
posing a  given  race  are  ignorant,  immoral,  and  con- 
temptuous of  the  law,  therefore  no  member  of  that 
race  is  worthy  of  the  respect  of  honorable  men. 
But '  the  argument,  when  stated  in  this  bald  form, 
hardly  calls  for  refutation :  the  fallacy  is  evident  on 
its  very  face.  When,  however,  the  argument  is 
clothed  in  a  garment  of  words  and  phrases,  the 
falsity  of  the  inference  is  not  so  easily  detected. 
This  fallacy  of  composition  usually  arises  from  a  too 
great  readiness  to  draw  unwarranted  generalizations. 

The  fallacy  of  division  is  the  converse  of  the  fal- 
lacy of  composition.  "  It  consists  in  assuming  that 
what  is  true  of  the  whole  is  also  true  of  the  parts 
taken  separately."  To  illustrate :  In  a  recent  col- 
lege debate  it  was  argued  that  a  treaty  providing 


Fallacies  I2I 

for  reciprocal  trade  relations  between  Canada  and 
the  United  States  would  not  be  beneficial  to  the 
United  States  taken  collectively,  and  then  the  in- 
ference was  drawn  that  it  would  not  be  beneficial 
to  the  state  of  Massachusetts.  Now,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  economic  conditions  and  economic  needs 
of  Massachusetts  are  different  in  many  ways  from 
those  of  the  United  States  in  general,  so  that  a  tariff 
policy  that  injured  the  country  as  a  whole  might, 
nevertheless,  help  her  as  a  state.  When,  therefore, 
the  arguer  assumed  that  the  arguments  which  applied 
to  the  states,  taken  collectively,  would  necessarily 
apply  to  any  one  of  the  states,  taken  separately,  he 
was  guilty  of  the  fallacy  of  division. 

IV.   Ignoring  the  Question,  or  arguing  beside  the  Point 

This  fallacy  consists  in  mistaking  the  conclusion  to 
be  proved,  or  endeavoring  to  prove  something  which 
has  no  important  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue.  One 
is  Hable  to  fall  into  this  fallacy  either  in  positive 
proof  or  in  refutation.  In  one's  own  proof  one  may 
waste  effort  in  the  attempt  to  establish  what  is  not 
worth  establishing,  or  one  may  attempt  to  deceive  by 
proving  something  so  near  like  the  real  conclusion 
that  it  seems  the  same.  In  refutation,  this  error  lies 
in  mistaking  the  point  to  be  answered,  or  in  deliber- 
ately misrepresenting  an  opponent's  position  in  order 
to  make  reply  easier. 

Mill  cites  the  example  of  the  refutation  made 
against  Malthus's  theory  of  population  :  — • 


122  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  The  attempts,  for  instance,  to  disprove  the  population 
doctrines  of  Malthus  have  been  mostly  cases  of  ignoratio 
elenchi — ignoring  the  point.  Malthus  has  been  supposed 
to  be  refuted  if  it  could  be  shown  that  in  some  countries 
or  ages  population  has  been  nearly  stationary ;  as  if  he  had 
asserted  that  population  always  increases  in  a  given  ratio,  or 
had  not  expressly  declared  that  it  increases  only  in  so  far  as 
it  is  not  restrained  by  prudence,  or'kept  down  by  poverty 
and  disease.  Or,  perhaps,  a  great  collection  of  facts  is 
produced  to  prove  that  in  some  one  country  the  people  are 
better  off  with  a  dense  population  than  they  are  in  another 
country  with  a  thin  one ;  or  that  the  people  have  become 
more  numerous  and  better  off  at  the  same  time.  As  if  the 
assertion  were  that  a  dense  population  could  not  possibly 
be  well  off :  as  if  it  were  not  part  of  the  very  doctrine,  and 
essential  to  it,  that  where  there  is  a  more  abundant  capital 
there  may  be  a  greater  population  without  any  increase  of 
poverty,  or  even  with  a  diminution  of  it."^ 

Webster,  arguing  for  the  prosecution  in  the  White 
murder  trial,  exposed  in  an  opponent  the  fallacy  of 
ignoring  the  point,  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  prisoner's  counsel  catch  at  supposed  flaws  of 
evidence,  or  bad  character  of  witnesses  without  meeting 
the  case.  Do  they  mean  to  deny  conspiracy  ?  Do  they 
mean  to  deny  that  the  two  Crowninshields  and  the  two 
Knapps  were  conspirators  ?  Why  do  they  rail  against 
Palmer,  while  they  do  not  disprove,  and  hardly  dispute, 
the  truth  of  any  fact  sworn  to  by  him  ?  Instead  of  this,  it 
is  made  a  mere  matter  of  sentimentality  that  Palmer  had 
been  prevailed  upon  to  betray  his  bosom  companions  and 
to  violate  the  sanctity  of  friendship.  Again  I  ask.  Why 
do  they  not  meet  the  case  ?  If  the  fact  is  out,  why  not 
meet  it?  Do  they  mean  to  deny  that  Captain  White  is 
1  Mill,  "  System  of  Logic,"  p.  517. 


Fallacies  123 

dead  ?  One  would  almost  have  supposed  even  that,  from 
some  remarks  that  have  been  made.  Do  they  mean  to 
deny  the  conspiracy?  Or,  admitting  a  conspiracy,  do 
they  mean  to  deny  only  that  Frank  Knapp,  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  was  abetting  in  the  murder,  being  present,  and 
so  deny  that  he  was  a  principal?  If  a  conspiracy  is 
proved,  it  bears  closely  upon  every  subsequent  subject 
of  inquiry.  Why  do  they  not  come  to  the  fact?  Here 
the  defence  is  wholly  indistinct.  The  counsel  neither  take 
the  ground  nor  abandon  it.  They  neither  fly  nor  light. 
They  hover.  But  they  must  come  to  a  closer  mode  of 
contest.  They  must  meet  the  facts  and  either  deny  or 
admit  them."^ 

In  addition  to  these  forms  we  often  encounter  the 
same  fallacy  in  the  shape  of  the  argument  ad  homi- 
nem  or  the  argument  ad  ignorantiam. 

The  ad  hominem  is  an  appeal  or  attack  directed  at 
the  character,  principles,  or  former  beliefs  and  state- 
ments of  some  person,  rather  than  at  the  subject- 
matter  in  controversy.  It  is  often  heard  in  law  courts 
where  one  attorney  aims  to  win  his  case  by  attacking 
the  character  of  his  opponent  or  by  placing  himself 
personally  in  a  better  light  before  the  jury.  It  is 
more  common  in  popular  harangues  and  political 
campaigns,  where  men  and  not  principles  are  at- 
tacked. This  appeal  to  personal  popularity  has 
often  been  a  great  power  in  American  politics,  even 
to  the  extent  of  making  and  unmaking  Presidents. 
It  is  often  useful  in  persuasion,  but  it  is  clearly  a 
fallacy  of  reasoning. 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  59.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1857. 


124  Argumentation  and  Debate 

The  argument  ad  ignorantiam  consists  in  attempt- 
ing or  claiming  to  prove  some  proposition  by  arguing 
that  the  opposite  cannot  be  proved.  The  fallacy  is 
essentially  a  confusion  of  positive  proof  and  refuta- 
tion. To  show  that  an  opponent's  case  cannot  be 
established  is  a  proper  kind  of  attack  in  argumenta- 
tion ;  but  it  is  only  negative  and  destructive  in  nature. 
It  proves  nothing  positive,  and  the  fallacy  consists 
in  maintaining  that  the  lack  of  proof  that  a  proposi- 
tion is  not  true,  establishes  that  it  is  true.  "Thus," 
says  Creighton,  *'we  cannot  prove  affirmatively  that 
spirits  do  not  revisit  the  earth  or  send  messages  to 
former  friends  through  mediums."  But  this  does 
not  prove  that  spirits  do  walk  the  earth. 

The  fallacy  may  take  various  forms,  all  consisting 
essentially  in  this  confusion  of  positive  proof  and 
refutation.  Every  day  we  hear  men  argue  against 
some  measure,  merely  supporting  their  positions  by 
raising  objections  to  this  detail  and  that,  and  pro- 
claiming the  act  therefore  to  be  essentially  bad. 
Large  combinations  of  capital  "  stifle  the  small 
producer,"  they  place  the  responsibility  for  indus- 
trial leadership  in  the  hands  of  a  comparative  few, 
and  often  make  these  few  men  very  rich ;  but  it  does 
not  necessarily  follow  that  "  trusts  "  are  bad.  There 
are  objections  that  may  be  raised  against  any  propo- 
sition, but  the  objections  are  not  conclusive  against  it 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  they  overbalance  all  that 
may  be  said  in  its  favor. 


Fallacies  125 

V.  Begging  the  Question 

This  fallacy  consists  in  assuming  the  truth  of  some 
proposition  which  is  the  same  as,  or  equivalent  to, 
the  conclusion  to  be  proved,  and  thence  inferring  the 
truth  of  the  conclusion.  This  fallacy  may  take  any 
one  of  several  forms.  The  most  common  are : 
(i)  assuming  the  truth  of  a  proposition  which  is 
the  same  as,  or  equivalent  to,  the  conclusion  that 
is  to  be  proved ;  (2)  assuming  the  truth  of  some 
general  proposition  which  includes  the  truth  of  the 
conclusion  to  be  proved;  (3)  arguing  in  a  circle. 

(i)  It  seems  at  first  sight  that  no  man  would  be  so 
foolish  or  so  bold  as  to  assume  the  truth  of  his  con- 
clusion as  one  of  the  means  of  proving  it.  But 
names  and  phrases  often  cloak  the  error,  and  in  the 
course  of  the  intervening  discussion  the  assumption 
may  be  forgotten  before  the  conclusion  is  reached ; 
so  it  is  not  always  an  easy  fallacy  to  run  to  earth. 

(2)  Assuming  the  truth  of  some  general  proposition 
from  which  the  particular  conclusion  in  question  must 
follow,  is  but  another  form  of  the  same  mistake.  To 
take  an  example  cited  by  John  Ward,  Vol.  I,  p.  159, 
of  his  "  System  of  Oratory  "  :  — 

"  So  when  the  Clodian  party  contended  that  Milo  ought 
to  suffer  death  for  this  reason,  because  he  had  confessed 
that  he  had  killed  Clodius,  that  argument  reduced  to  a 
syllogism  would  stand  thus : 

"  He  who  confesses  he  has  killed  another  ought  not  to  be 
allowed  to  see  the  light. 

"  But  Milo  confesses  this. 


126  Argiimentatio7i  and  Debate 

"  Therefore  he  ought  7iot  to  live. 

"  Now  the  force  of  this  argument  lies  in  the  major  or 
first  proposition,  which  Cicero  refutes  by  proving  that  the 
Roman  people  had  already  determined  contrary  to  what 
is  there  asserted:  ^  In  what  city,''  says,  he,  ^ do  these  men 
dispute  after  this  weak  manner  ?  In  that  wherein  the  first 
capital  trial  -was  in  the  case  of  the  brave  Hor alius,  who, 
before  the  city  ejijoyed  perfect  freedom,  was  saved  By  the 
suffrages  of  the  Roman  people,  tho^  he  confessed  that  he 
killed  his  sister  with  his  own  hand.' " 

In  this  case  the  advocate  who  was  prosecuting 
Milo  assumed  the  truth  of  a  general  proposition, 
which  included  the  particular  proposition  he  sought 
to  establish.  He  assumed  that  every  man  who  has 
killed  another  ought  to  die,  when  it  was  admitted 
that  Milo  had  killed  Clodius.  Cicero  refuted  the 
argument  by  pointing  out  the  fallacy  and  showing 
that  the  general  assumption  was  false,  because  the 
Roman  people  had  in  the  past  pardoned  a  man  who 
had  killed  another. 

(3)  More  common  than  either  of  the  two  foregoing 
is  the  fallacy  called  "arguing  in  a  circle."  It  is  one 
of  the  frequent  errors  of  careless  arguers  and  a  com- 
mon trick  for  confusing  a  sluggish  thinker.  The  fal- 
lacy consists  in  taking  two  propositions  and  using 
them  each  in  turn  to  prove  the  other. 

For  instance,  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  in  the 
case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders  argued  in  a  circle,  and 
was  exposed  by  Mr.  Webster  :  — 

"  The  plaintiff  in  error  argues  in  a  complete  circle.  He 
supposes  the  parties  (in  the  making  of  a  contract)  to  have 


Fallacies  127 

had  reference  to  it  (the  statute  law)  because  it  was  a  bind- 
ing law,  and  yet  he  proves  it  to  be  a  binding  law  only  upon 
the  ground  that  such  reference  was  made  to  it." 

Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen,  in  his  "  Introduction 
to  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,"  Ch.  II,  gives  the  follow- 
ing illustration :  — 

"  A  ship  is  cast  away  under  such  circumstances  that  her 
loss  may  be  accounted  for  either  by  fraud  or  by  accident. 
The  captain  is  tried  for  making  away  with  her.  A  variety 
of  circumstances  exist  which  would  indicate  preparation 
and  expectation  on  his  part  if  the  ship  really  was  made 
away  with,  but  which  would  justify  no  suspicion  at  all  if 
she  was  not.  It  is  manifestly  illogical,  first,  to  regard  the 
antecedent  circumstances  as  suspicious,  because  the  loss 
of  the  ship  is  assumed  to  be  fraudulent,  and,  next,  to  infer 
that  the  ship  was  fraudulently  destroyed  from  the  suspi- 
cious character  of  the  antecedent  circumstances." 

These  are  not,  by  any  means,  all  the  fallacies  men 
commit  in  their  reasonings,  but  they  are  the  ones  most 
frequently  encountered  in  public  writing  and  speaking. 
The  ability  to  detect  such  mistakes  as  these  explained 
above,  either  in  the  proof  of  an  opponent  or  in  his 
own  proof,  is  a  power  which  the  arguer  can  hardly 
overestimate.  In  testing  his  own  work  it  will,  at  least, 
guard  against  drawing  inferences  that  will  not  bear 
even  superficial  scrutiny ;  and  in  testing  the  argu- 
ments of  an  opponent,  though  he  may  not  be  able 
entirely  to  discredit  them,  he  may,  unless  the  infer- 
ences are  logically  drawn,  be  able  to  raise  a  serious 
question  as  to  their  accuracy. 


BOOK   III.     ARRANGEMENT 
CHAPTER  I 

GENERAL   PRINCIPLES  OF  ARRANGEMENT 

We  have  now  analyzed  our  question,  found  out  what 
we  want  to  prove,  and  chosen  the  materials  to  use  in 
making  the  proof.  We  have  chosen  our  recruits  and 
gathered  them  together ;  but  that  is  all.  Our  army  is 
only  half  made ;  it  is  but  a  confused  and  straggling 
mob.  To  tempt  the  fortunes  of  battle  with  such  an 
array  would  mean  defeat.  The  forces  must  be  organ- 
ized into  companies,  regiments,  divisions ;  they  must 
be  officered  with  captains,  colonels,  and  generals,  and 
at  their  head  must  be  placed  a  commander,  the 
master  spirit  of  all ;  they  must  be  drilled  and  disci- 
plined and  taught  to  know  their  rights  and  their 
duties.  Organization  is  no  more  necessary  in  an 
army  than  is  arrangement  in  an  argument:  every 
master  of  the  art  of  war  knows  how  to  organize  his 
forces ;  every  master  of  the  art  of  debate  knows  how 
to  arrange  his  proofs.  The  results  from  lack  of 
organization  are  the  same  in  both,  —  discord,  wasted 
strength,  and  weakness.  It  is  only  by  careful  ar- 
rangement that  ideas  and  evidence  can  be  kept  from 
self-contradiction  and  confusion,  that  their  strength 
can  be  saved  and  directed  to  accomplish  anything. 

128 


General  Principles  of  Arrangemejit  129 

To  secure  an  effective  arrangement  of  materials  in 

argumentation,  the  qualities  to  be  sought  are  three  in 

number :  — 

I.    Unity. 

II.   Coherence. 

III.    Emphasis. 

I.   Unity 

It  is  essential  to  the  success  of  any  piece  of  argu- 
mentation that  the  ultimate  effect  produced  by  it 
upon  the  audience  shall  be  a  single  impression.  The 
judges  in  a  college  debate  may  accept  many  of  the 
ideas  of  the  affirmative  and  appreciate  much  of  its 
evidence ;  but  the  affirmative  will  not  win  unless  the 
judges  are  dominated  by  the  single  impression  that 
their  whole  case  is  stronger  than  that  of  the  negative. 
A  jury  may  accept  much  of  the  testimony  and  argu- 
ment of  a  plaintiff,  yet  give  the  case  to  the  defendant, 
having  greater  confidence  in  the  defendant's  case  as 
a  whole  ;  for  to  them  it  may  seem  that  the  defendant's 
testimony  ''  hangs  together "  better,  his  arguments 
may  seem  more  cumulative  and  cooperative.  In  any 
deliberative  body  it  is  the  measure  that  seems  wisest 
from  the  greatest  number  of  viewpoints  that  is  made 
into  law. 

To  achieve  an  impression  that  will  bring  belief  or 
action,  our  materials  must  be  so  arranged  as  to  be  a 
single  unit  of  force.  Little  facts  and  great  ideas  must 
work  together,  each  enforcing  the  other.  Each  fact 
must  corroborate  its  fellows,  and  inconsistency  must 


130  Argumentation  and  Debate 

never  appear.  Everything  must  work  for  the  single 
ultimate  purpose  of  proving,  not  this  idea  or  that, 
but  the  proposition.  Such  unity  as  this  can  be 
obtained  only  by  the  most  painstaking  efforts  and  the 
most  careful  tact. 

In  any  piece  of  argumentation  the  most  vital  force 
is  obviously  the  proof  itself,  —  the  evidence  and  the 
arguments.  It  would, .  however,  be  a  very  defective 
effort  which  contained  nothing  else  besides  the  giving 
of  testimony  and  the  manufacture  of  it  into  proof. 
These  materials  must  be  introduced  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  will  clear  the  way  before  them  and  place 
them  in  the  field  advantageously  for  action.  This 
is  the  work  of  the  divisions  of  the  oration  called 
variously  by  different  writers  the  introduction,  the 
narration,  the  partition.  By  whatever  name  we  call 
it,  some  preparation  is  needed  before  the  work  of  the 
discussion  can  be  well  done.  The  audience  must 
know  what  the  dispute  is  about,  what  are  the  issues 
to  be  decided,  and  what  are  the  points  of  fact  that 
decide  them.  Then,  too,  our  work  is  never  complete 
till  we  have  gathered  together  evidence  and  argu- 
ments at  the  end  of  the  discussion,  to  show  how  we 
have  made  good  the  fair  promises  and  claims  of  the 
beginning ;  no  work  of  composition  is  finished  with- 
out a  conclusion,  or  peroration.  From  the  viewpoint 
of  unity  the  introduction  and  conclusion  are  indis- 
pensable. It  is  practically  impossible  to  bind  to- 
gether evidence,  arguments,  and  ideas  of  all  kinds 
and  degrees  of  importance,  and  make  them  work  in 


General  Principles  of  Arrangement  131 

harmony,  simply  by  means  of  logical  internal  arrange- 
ment. There  must  be  some  other  external  force  to 
weld  them  together  and  establish  them  in  their  true 
relations  to  one  another  and  to  the  whole. 

The  work  of  the  introduction  is  to  make  clear  the 
real  nature  of  the  question  in  controversy,  why  it 
is  in  dispute,  how  it  is  related  to  other  problems,  what 
the  really  significant  facts  are.  Such  an  explanation 
presents  the  question  to  the  audience  as  a  single  com- 
plete problem,  distinguished  from  other  problems ;  it 
fixes  the  proofs  that  are  to  follow  in  their  true  rela- 
tions to  the  proposition  and  to  each  other  by  explain- 
ing what  facts  are  vital  in  the  case,  how  these  facts 
may  be  proved,  and  how  the  disputant  intends  to 
create  the  proof. 

The  work  of  the  conclusion  is  to  bind  finally  to- 
gether the  many  and  varied  elements  of  the  proof. 
However  perfect  the  introductory  precautions,  as  evi- 
dence and  arguments  are  marshalled  in  rapid  succes- 
sion, and  as  each  fact  and  each  idea  is  emphasized  in 
its  importance,  the  reader  or  hearer  loses  his  grasp 
on  the  case  as  a  whole.  He  may  believe  this  testi- 
mony or  accept  that  idea,  but  his  beliefs  are  vague  or 
hesitating  about  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof  as 
a  whole.  He  is  not  yet  brought  to  that  place  where 
he  can  be  trusted  to  render  a  favoring  decision  or  to 
carry  out  his  approval  into  action.  It  still  remains 
to  show  that  the  proof  of  this  point  and  that,  though 
insufficient  in  themselves,  when  added  together  prove 
the  proposition.     The  cumulative  force  of  the  whole 


132  Argumentation  and  Debate 

must  be  displayed;  proof,  evidence,  and  arguments 
must  be  gathered  together  and  at  length  delivered  as 
one  blow.  This  is  the  work  of  the  conclusion,  and  if 
it  is  well  done,  the  end  is  but  a  restatement  —  though 
in  very  different  manner  —  of  the  beginning.  The 
conclusion  should  usually  be  so  related  to  the  intro- 
duction that  the  proof  seems  to  lead  around  in  a 
circle,  so  that  in  the  end  we  arrive  again  at  the  point 
from  which  we  started. 

In  addition  to  the  work  of  the  introduction  and  the 
conclusion,  in  giving  unity  to  the  composition,  care 
must  be  taken  in  the  arrangement  of  the  matter  in 
the  body  of  the  discussion  itself.  The  proposition  is 
the  chief  element  that  works  for  coherence  in  the 
whole  composition ;  by  relation  to  it  all  must  be 
bound  together  in  one.  Consequently  the  materials 
should  be  so  arranged  that  every  element  is  connected 
either  directly  or  indirectly  with  the  proposition,  and 
the  connection  so  clearly  established  that  it  will  be 
understood  without  effort.  If  a  fact  or  an  idea  is  set 
up  as  if  for  its  own  sake  or  is  left  ambiguous  in  its 
bearing  on  the  facts  in  issue,  it  turns  attention  in  the 
wrong  direction,  gives  a  mistaken  impression  of  the 
whole  position  taken  by  the  arguer,  and  destroys 
the  cooperation  between  the  parts,  which  is  necessary 
to  unity. 

This  harmony  within  the  proof  itself  is  largely  a 
matter  of  proper  subordination  of  the  parts,  and  may 
better  be  treated  under  the  heading  of  coherence. 


General  Principles  of  Arrangement  133 

II.  Coherence 

Closely  akin  to  unity  is  the  quality  of  coherence. 
The  purpose  of  all  argumentation  is  to  convey  ideas 
to  others  and  make  them  believe  as  we  do ;  and,  how- 
ever well  settled  our  own  conceptions  may  be,  if  we 
beget  confusion  in  presenting  them  to  others,  our 
efforts  are  in  vain.  However  truly  our  facts  and  our 
inferences  have  a  bearing  on  the  proposition  we  up- 
hold, if  the  bearing  is  not  clear  to  those  we  seek  to  con- 
vince, our  argumentation  is  a  failure.  The  principle 
of  coherence,  then,  demands  that  all  the  materials  of 
the  proof  be  so  arranged  as  to  make  clear  their  rela- 
tion to  each  other  and  to  the  proposition. 

Of  the  elements  of  coherence  in  argumentation,  per- 
haps the  most  important  is  what  may  be  called  "  sub- 
ordination." We  have  seen,  in  the  treatment  of  the 
finding  of  the  issues,  that  in  any  argumentative  com- 
position, the  proof  is  made  up  of  materials  of  widely 
different  values.  There  are  some  facts  that  are  so 
vital  that,  if  we  can  make  sure  of  them,  they  will 
establish  our  whole  case;  and  there  are  others  that 
are  truly  valuable,  but  that  have  no  meaning  or  im- 
portance in  themselves.  These  secondary  facts  find 
no  excuse  for  their  introduction,  except  that  they  serve 
to  prove  the  existence  of  some  other  fact.  It  follows 
that  to  put  them  into  the  proof  without  making  clear 
just  what  is  their  bearing  on  these  other  larger  facts, 
and  just  what  is  the  part  they  are  intended  to  per- 
form, is  to  lose  their  only  value.     In  the  progress  of 


134  Argmnentatioji  and  Debate 

the  argument  from  point  to  point,  they  will  be  passed 
by  without  any  understanding  of  their  significance, 
and  so  are  almost  as  well  not  given  at  all. 

In  contrast  with  these  materials  of  a  tributary 
nature  are  those  facts  and  ideas  in  the  proof  that  are 
themselves  of  prime  importance.  The  nature  of  the 
human  mind  is  such  that,  in  reasoning,  there  are 
always  a  few  points  that  stand  out  boldly,  while  all  else 
sinks  into  a  background  of  support.  No  reader  or 
hearer  can  carry  in  mind  and  thoroughly  assimilate 
more  than  a  half  dozen  important  ideas  on  any  ques- 
tion in  debate;  so  that  the  greatest  care  must  be 
taken  to  enforce  upon  his  attention  and  fix  in  his 
memory  the  facts  in  the  case  that  are  really  decisive. 
He  may  be  permitted  to  forget  the  details  of  evidence, 
but  the  existence  of  these  decisive  facts  he  must  be 
brought  to  remember.  If  a  reader  or  hearer  is  really 
to  comprehend  the  meaning  of  any  proofs,  he  must 
be  made  to  understand  what  is  large  and  what  is 
small,  what  is  important  and  what  trivial.  A  traveller 
on  the  prairie  gazes  out  over  the  unbroken  level  of 
the  plain,  but  he  sees  nothing  and  remembers  nothing 
save  a  feeling  of  weariness  and  monotony.  The  same 
is  even  more  strikingly  true  of  the  mind  of  a  man 
who  is  being  reasoned  with.  He  must  see  hills  and 
valleys,  light  and  darkness,  great  and  small,  or  his 
mental  vision  is  little  more  than  a  blank  stare  that 
leaves  nothing  behind  to  be  remembered  or  believed. 

Therefore,  in  arranging  our  materials:  (i)  We 
must  first  find  out  what  are  the  critical  points  to  be 


General  Principles  of  Arrangement  135 

established.  (2)  Then  these  points  must  be  made  to 
stand  out  above  all  the  rest  of  the  proofs.  (3)  Fi- 
nally, all  the  secondary  materials  must  be  carefully 
grouped  about  these  centres  of  proof. 

A  second  element  of  coherence  in  arrangement  is 
a  quality  that  may  be  called  "sequence."  Not  only 
is  it  true  that,  in  the  proof,  the  lesser  facts  are  depend- 
ent upon  the  greater  for  their  value  and  their  mean- 
ing, but  it  is  also  hardly  less  true  that  all  the  facts 
and  ideas  are,  in  like  manner,  dependent  upon  each 
other.  Rarely  is  any  one  fact  sufficient  to  estabhsh 
another  larger  fact ;  more  rarely  is  any  one  single 
fact  or  id^a  sufficient  to  establish  the  proposition. 
Usually  the  process  is :  many  lesser  bits  of  evidence 
are  set  forth  to  prove  each  larger  fact;  then  a  num- 
ber of  these  larger  facts  combine  and  cooperate  to 
prove  the  whole.  Where  the  proofs  are  of  such  a 
nature,  the  effectiveness  of  the  coequal  facts  depends, 
in  large  degree,  upon  the  way  in  which  they  are  made 
to  work  together. 

This  cooperation  is  largely  a  matter  of  sequence. 
Much  evidence,  not  intelligible  in  itself,  becomes  full 
of  meaning  and  force  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
other  correlative  evidence.  In  any  part  of  the  proof, 
then,  it  is  important  that  such  facts  be  not  set  forth 
till  after  those  from  which  they  get  their  importance. 
For  a  fact  misunderstood  or  neglected  when  it  is  first 
given,  "falls  back  dead  "  and  is  rarely  called  to  mind 
again ;  it  must  in  most  cases  be  appreciated  when  it 
is  given,  or  it  is  lost.      Especially  is  this  true  of  the 


136  Argumentation  and  Debate 

treatment  of  the  larger  ideas  in  a  composition.  Often 
an  audience  listens  inattentively  for  many  minutes  to 
a  speaker  who  is  giving  his  best  energy  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  some  idea  of  the  first  importance,  because 
they  are  not  possessed  of  those  other  facts  that  they 
must  know  to  realize  the  meaning  of  his  proof. 
Again,  it  often  happens  that,  before  an  audience  will 
follow  the  arguments  of  a  disputant,  he  must  first 
overthrow  certain  of  the  proofs  of  his  opponent.  As 
long  as  they  remain  unanswered,  the  audience  remain 
suspicious  and  incapable  of  rightly  understanding  or 
crediting  anything  else ;  their  viewpoint  must  be  cor- 
rected before  anything  else  can  be  done  with  good 
effect. 

To  secure  coherence,  it  is  also  necessary  to  arrange 
the  ideas  so  that  they  follow  one  another  with  easy 
and  natural  transitions.  A  reader  or  hearer  should 
not  feel  that  he  is  being  arbitrarily  picked  up,  carried 
around,  and  dropped,  at  the  whim  of  the  speaker  or 
writer ;  he  should  rather  have  the  sensation  of  being 
led  easily,  yet  firmly,  along  in  the  most  natural  paths 
of  reasoning.  Readers  or  listeners  are  easily  con- 
fused by  sudden  breaks  in  the  chain  of  reasoning,  and 
readily  become  lost  if  their  mental  scenes  are  shifted 
too  suddenly.  As  the  speaker  proceeds,  an  audience 
should  see  the  way  opening  gradually  before  them, 
feeling  that  each  step  is  natural ;  so  that  when  they 
have  come  to  the  end  they  will  believe  they  have 
reached  a  proper  destination. 

In  arranging  for  proper  sequence,  then,  we  need 


General  Principles  of  Arrajigement  137 

to  consider  two  requisites:  (i)  Proofs  must  be  pre- 
sented in  such  an  order  that  every  fact  is  clear  in 
its  full  import  at  the  time  when  it  is  presented. 
(2)  Each  idea  must  follow  logically  from  the  one 
preceding,  in  such  a  way  that  a  single  chain  of  rea- 
soning runs  all  through  the  proof. 

III.  Emphasis 

Well-directed  emphasis  is  one  of  the  prime  quali- 
ties of  all  successful  composition,  and  nowhere  does 
it  do  a  greater  service  than  in  argumentation.  In 
the  first  place,  as  we  have  already  seen,  there  are 
some  things  in  our  proof  that  are  important  and 
some  that  are  trivial ;  emphasis  distinguishes  between 
them.  Again,  a  disputant  always  has  some  points  in 
his  case  that  are  strong  and  can  be  relied  on,  while  he 
has  others  that  are  weak  and  vulnerable ;  emphasis 
gives  prominence  to  his  strong  points  and  covers  up 
his  weak  points. 

Many  qualities  of  arrangement  that  make  for 
coherence  are  as  truly  matters  of  emphasis.  The 
grouping  of  lesser  facts  around  the  greater,  which 
is  so  essential  to  coherence,  is  equally  important  in 
emphasizing  the  important  points  in  the  proof.  But, 
in  addition  to  this  discrimination  between  the  lesser 
and  the  greater  facts,  it  is  also  necessary  to  discrimi- 
nate between  the  various  more  important  points  of 
the  proof.  Some  are  more  warmly  contested  than 
others,  and  the  proof  on  these  critical  points  must 


138  Argumentation  and  Debate 

be  made  to  stand  out  over  everything  else.  Again, 
on  some  issues,  one  contestant  or  another  has  the 
bad  side  for  facts;  the  truth  is  against  him,  and  he 
must  conceal  his  defects.  So  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  know  what  are  the  places  for  the  display 
of  strength,  and  what  the  places  for  the  hiding  of 
weakness. 

The  emphatic  parts  of  the  proof  are  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end.  At  the  beginning  the  audience 
is  expectant  and  critical,  and  first  impressions  are 
enduring;  at  the  end  comes  "the  last  word,"  the 
part  which  gives  the  final  impulse  to  conviction  and 
persuasion.  The  parts  between  are  most  easily  for- 
gotten ;  so  it  is  the  middle  of  the  proof  that  receives 
what  is  to  be  neglected  or  concealed. 

The  most  important  point  should  usually  be  placed 
at  the  end,  for  that  is  the  position  of  maximum  em- 
phasis. The  importance  of  the  beginning  depends 
somewhat  on  the  circumstances ;  but  it  is  rarely  safe 
to  make  a  feeble  beginning.  The  first  impression 
must  not  be  weak,  for  it  too  often  creates  a  prejudice 
that  is  an  obstacle  to  later  progress.  Sometimes  the 
beginning  is  made  exceptionally  important  by  the 
necessity  for  an  immediate  answer  to  some  argument 
advanced  by  an  opponent.  His  arguments  may  have 
been  so  strong  and  may  have  made  such  an  effect 
that  the  answer  to  them  becomes  a  turning-point 
of  the  proof;  the  refutation  of  them  must  be  made 
emphatic.  This  refutation  may,  if  the  answer  is  very 
strong,  and  if  it  concerns  the  most  vital  point  of  the 


General  Principles  of  Arrangement  139 

whole  question,  be  reserved  till  the  end.  But  some- 
times the  arguments  need  to  be  answered  at  once,  in 
order  to  remove  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  audience,, 
and  in  order  to  influence  them  favorably  for  the 
reception  of  the  other  proofs  that  are  to  come.  In 
such  cases  both  emphasis  and  tact  require  that  the 
refutation  be  placed  at  the  beginning. 

General  refutation  may  be  massed  at  particular 
points,  or  it  may  be  scattered  along  at  different  places 
through  the  proof.  Lesser  arguments  are  usually 
best  answered  wherever  they  happen  to  be  sug- 
gested in  the  course  of  the  proof ;  for  distinct  atten- 
tion to  them  would  give  them  an  undue  prominence. 
The  decision  whether  a  point  is  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance to  require  separate  notice  is  a  matter  of  indi- 
vidual judgment. 

It  may  readily  be  seen  from  the  preceding  discus- 
sion of  the  general  principles  of  arrangement  that 
unity,  coherence,  and  emphasis  in  argumentation 
imply  more  than  in  most  kinds  of  composition.  The 
fusing  of  a  multitude  of  thoughts  into  one  thought, 
the  careful  leading  of  a  man's  reason  from  one  point 
to  another,  the  indispensable  discrimination  between 
great  and  small,  the  painstaking  establishment  of 
unmistakable  relations  between  each  small  fact  and 
the  whole  question,  the  impressing  of  the  few  vital 
points  on  the  attention  and  the  memory,  —  all  these 
tasks  are  exaggerated  and  made  more  critical  than 
in  any  other  kind  of  writing  or  speaking. 

It  follows  that  much  more  care  must  be  taken  here 


140  Argumentation  and  Debate 

than  in  other  kinds  of  composition,  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  our  materials,  before  we  finally  put  them  in 
rhetorical  form  for  presentation.  In  description  or 
narration,  all  the  work  of  preliminary  arrangement 
that  is  desirable  may  be  embodied  in  a  short  outline 
of  a  few  headings.  All  that  is  needed  is  a  few 
rough  jottings  to  state  the  main  ideas  and  suggest 
the  general  lines  of  their  development;  facts,  rhe- 
torical figures,  mental  pictures"  are  properly  left  to 
the  suggestion  of  the  minute.  In  argumentation  the 
requisites  are  far  different.  So  much  depends  upon 
the  exact  relations  of  fact  to  fact  and  point  to  point, 
in  order  to  make  our  appeals  to  the  reasoning  facul- 
ties clear  and  effective,  that  we  must  give  much  more 
time  and  consideration  to  the  arrangement  of  our 
materials.  We  must  not  only  arrange  our  main 
ideas  and  indicate  the  general  trend  of  the  develop- 
ment of  these  ideas,  but  also  the  details  of  fact  and 
of  explanation  must  be  accurately  established  in  their 
proper  relations  with  each  other. 

The  work  of  arrangement  in  argumentation  is  best 
embodied  in  what  is  commonly  called  a  "  brief."  A 
complete  "  brief  "  is  not,  like  outlines  in  many  other 
kinds  of  composition,  a  mere  cursory  sketch  com- 
posed of  paragraph  or  sentence  headings.  An  argu- 
mentative outline,  to  do  the  work  of  arrangement 
properly,  should  contain  a  statement  and  an  arrange- 
ment of  all  the  materials  of  the  proof.  In  it  should 
be  found  all  the  essential  points  of  explanation  and 
introduction,  all  the  evidence,  arguments,  and  ideas 


General  Piinciplcs  cf  Ari'angement  141 

that  go  to  prove  the  proposition,  and  all  the  sum- 
marizing required  to  make  the  proof  effective.  In 
short,  a  complete  brief  differs  from  the  finished  com- 
position that  may  be  created  from  it  only  in  the  fact 
that  it  lacks  rhetorical  form  and  the  arts  of  persua- 
sion. It  contains  practically  all  that  is  necessary  for 
a  successful  appeal  to  the  intellect.  The  brief  is  a 
composition  in  itself,  and,  when  it  is  completed,  it 
embodies  the  greater  part  of  the  work  of  preparation. 


PROPERTyOF 
OEPAIiTtHEHT  OF  eOAtlATIC  ART 


CHAPTER   II 

BRIEF-DRAWING 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  seen  what  is  the 
nature  of  the  outline,  or  "brief,"  which  is  to  be  used 
in  the  work  of  arrangement.  This  brief  is  not  a 
mere  rough  sketch,  made  as  in  many  other  kinds  of 
composition,  simply  to  suggest  to  our  own  minds  a 
few  main  lines  of  thought.  Rude  outlines  may  well 
be  serviceable  in  argumentation,  in  helping  to  clarify 
our  ideas.  But  they  are  not  the  ultimate  form  in 
which  we  should  arrange  our  materials :  they  are 
merely  helpful  steps  by  which  we  finally  reach  a  com- 
pleted brief.  On  the  contrary,  the  completed  brief 
should  contain  nearly  all  the  proof  of  the  whole  case, 
even  to  the  statement  of  the  evidence,  and  should  be 
an  argument  in  itself.  The  brief  is  not  a  mere  sketch 
that  may  be  suggestive  to  our  own  minds,  but  it  is  a 
fully  developed  proof  that  may  well  serve  to  convince 
others.  Further,  we  have  seen  that  the  qualities  to 
be  sought  in  arrangement  are  unity,  coherence,  and 
emphasis. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  develop  a 
system  by  which  we  can  make  briefs  that  will  em- 
body these  three  desirable  qualities  and  fulfil  all  the 
requirernents  of  effective  arrangement.     The  plan  of 

142 


Brief -Dra  wing  1 43 

the  chapter  will  be :  to  take  some  actual  proposition 
for  debate,  to  begin  with  a  rough  outline  on  the 
negative  side  of  the  question,  then,  step  by  step,  to 
find  the  modifications  that  are  necessary  to  make  it 
an  effective  brief,  finally  stating  these  modifications 
in  the  form  of  rules  for  brief-drawing. 

Let  us  take  first  a  rough  topical  outline  such  as 
might  commonly  be  made  the  rude  beginning  of  any 
ordinary  composition. 

Question,  Resolved,  that  in  the  United  States  the 
contract  system  of  employing  convict  labor  should  be 
abolished. 

BRIEF  Ai 
Negative 

The  convict  labor  problem. 

Necessity  of  employment.     Experiments  with  dif- 
ferent systems. 
Effect  of  contract  system  on  reformation. 

Control  by  prison  officers,  habits  of  industry  (regu- 
lations of  the  contract),  and  learning  trades. 
Competition  with  free  labor  under   the   different 

systems. 
Competition  under  piece-price  system. 
Competition  under  contract  system. 
Public-account  system. 
Methods  of  removing  evils  of  competition   under 

contract  system. 
Contract  system  is  the  most  profitable. 

^The  term  "brief"  is  hardly  the  exact  name  for  this  rough  outline, 
but  it  is  used  for  convenience, 


144  ArgHincntation  and  Debate 

Examples. 
On  the  whole  the  contract  system  is  preferable  to 
any  other. 

This  outline  and  the  two  or  three  immediately  fol- 
lowing are  little  more  than  a  meaningless  jumble  of 
headings  to  any  one  but  the  writer  himself,  and  yet  it 
is  the  kind  of  outline  that  a  student  will  sometimes 
present  as  the  basis  of  a  composition. 

What  then  shall  be  the  first  step  in  giving  form  to 
this  material  ?  In  the  last  chapter  we  saw  that  in 
any  piece  of  argumentation  the  important  part  is  the 
proof  itself,  and  that  in  order  to  secure  unity  it  is 
necessary  to  subordinate  the  introduction  and  con- 
clusion, making  them  simply  a  means  in  the  more 
effective  presentation  of  the  points  in  the  proof. 
In  the  outline  just  given  it  is  evident  that  a  part  is 
introductory  in  nature,  a  part  is  a  discussion  of  the 
proof,  and  part  is  merely  a  word  of  conclusion.  This, 
then,  is  the  first  step  :  to  separate  the  parts  and  show 
their  relationship. 

Rule  I.  The  brief  should  be  divided  into  three 
parts,  marked  respectively,  introduction,  discussion^ 
a7td  conclusion. 

Taking  Brief  A  and  separating  the  parts  according 
to  this  rule  we  have :  — 

BRIEF  B 
Introduction 
The  convict  labor  problem. 

Necessity  of  employment.     Experiments  with  dif- 
ferent systems, 


Brief-Drawing  1 45 

Discussion 

Effect  of  contract  system  on  reformation. 

Control  by  prison  officers,  habits  of  industry  (regu- 
lations of  the  contract),  and  learning  trades. 

Competition  with  free  labor  under  the   different 
systems. 

Competition  under  piece-price  system. 

Competition  under  contract  sy.stem. 

Public-account  system. 

Methods  of  removing  evils  of  competition  under 
contract  system. 

Contract  system  is  the  most  profitable. 
Examples. 

Conclusion 

On  the  whole  the  contract  system  is  preferable  to 
any  other. 

To  secure  unity  and  coherence  in  a  brief  we  found 
not  only  that  it  was  necessary  to  consider  the  intro- 
duction and  conclusion  ancillary  to  the  discussion 
itself,  but  also  that  it  was  necessary  to  arrange  the 
material  so  that  it  will  make  clear  what  is  important 
and  what  is  subordinate.  The  most  natural  method 
of  securing  this  result  is  to  arrange  the  material  of 
the  brief  in  headings  and  subheadings. 

Take,  for  instance,  this  from  Brief  A :  — 

Competition  with  free  labor  under  the   different 

systems. 
Competition  under  piece-price  system. 

L 


146  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Competition  under  contract  system. 
Public-account  system. 

Although  these  points  are  made  here  as  of  equal 
value,  it  is  obvious  after  a  moment's  observation  that 
they  are  of  unequal  value.  Take  the  first  two  head- 
ings :  the  second  is  certainly  subordinate  to  the  first, 
and  should  be  so  arranged.  Evidently  there  is  some 
central  idea  in  this  group  of  headings,  and  we  must 
find  this  idea  and  state  it  in  such  a  way  that  the  minor 
points  can  all  be  grouped  under  it.  What,  then,  is  the 
central  idea.**  It  involves  a  comparison  of  the  con- 
tract system  and  the  other  systems  as  regards  its 
competition  with  free  labor,  and  it  may  be  stated  as 
follows :  — 

BRIEF  C 
Competition  with  free  labor  is  less  harmful  under  the 
contract  system  than  under  the  other  systems. 

Effects  of  competition  under  the  piece-price  system. 

Effects  of   competition   under   the   public-account 
system. 

Ways  of  removing  any  evil  effects  under  the  con- 
tract system. 

In  general,  then :  — 

Rule  II.  The  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged 
in  the  form  of  headings  and  subheadings. 

In  taking  up  Brief  B  the  most  obvious  fault  is  the 
lack  of  clearness.  For  the  purpose  of  conveying 
the  ideas  to  any  other  person  than  the  maker  of  the 


Brief-Drawing  147 

brief,  the  outline  is  useless.      Take,  for  illustration, 
the  introduction  to  this  brief :  — 

The  convict  labor  problem. 

Necessity  of  employment.     Experiments  with  dif- 
ferent systems. 

Here  no  one  of  the  statements  carries  a  clear  idea 
of  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  "  Necessity 
of  employment."  What  about  it  ?  Does  the  writer 
mean  there  is  no  necessity  of  employment,  or  that 
there  is  a  general  necessity  t  Employment  for  what 
purpose  ?  Under  what  conditions  ?  These  questions 
and  others  may  justly  be  asked,  and  the  brief  cannot 
be  said  to  be  even  tolerable,  until  the  ideas  are  so 
stated  that  they  cannot  be  misunderstood.  Evidently, 
the  principal  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  writer 
has  failed  to  make  his  statements  complete.  A  word, 
or  even  a  number  of  words,  taken  out  of  their  connec- 
tion may  often  have  a  number  of  different  meanings, 
and  the  way  to  guard  against  vagueness  and  ambigu- 
ity is  to  make  complete  sentences.  Let  us  then 
expand  these  phrases  into  complete  statements. 

BRIEF  D 

The  problem  of  employment  of  the  convict  is  one  of 
the  serious  problems  of  criminology. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  convict  must  be  employed 
in  some  kind  of  work.     Several  different  sys- 
tems of  employment  have  been  tried  in  this 
country ;  the  most   important   of   which  are : 


148  Argumentation  and  Debate 

the  piece-price  system,  the  public-account  sys- 
tem, and  the  contract  system. 

Rule   III.     Each   heading  and  subheading  should 
be  i7i  the  form  of  a  complete  statement. 

Another  common  fault  of  brief-drawing,  and  one 
closely  akin  to  the  one  just  considered,  is  that  of 
crowding  too  much  into  one  heading.  It  is  as  impor- 
tant to  have  each  heading  a  single  statement  as  it  is 
to  have  each  heading  a  complete  statement.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  first  point  from  the  discussion, 
Brief  B:  — 

Effect  of  the  contract  system  on  reformation. 

Control  by  prison  officers,  habits  of  industry 
(regulations  of  the  contract),  and  the  learn- 
ing of  trades. 

Expanding  this  into  complete  statements  in  accord- 
ance with  Rule  III  we  have:  — 

The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work  of  re- 
forming the  criminal.  Under  this  system  crimi- 
nals are  under  the  direct  and  responsible  control 
of  the  prison  officers,  and  are  taught  habits  of 
industry,  for  the  regulations  of  the  contracts 
prescribe  these  things.  The  criminals  have  an 
opportunity  to  learn  practical  trades. 

The  subordinate  heading  here  is  an  incoherent 
jumble,  or,  as  it  may  be  called,  a  crowded  heading. 
The  results  of  a  crowded  heading  are :  a  lack  of  evi- 
dent connection    between   the   different   subordinate 


Brief-Drawing  149 

headings,  and  a  similar  lack  of  connection  between 
the  subordinate  headings  and  the  main  heading. 
For  instance,  the  statement  "for  the  regulations  of 
the  contracts  prescribe  these  things "  evidently  has 
no  direct  connection  with  the  main  heading,  "  The 
contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work  of  reforming 
the  criminal,"  and  to  show  justification  for  its  pres- 
ence in  the  brief  some  change  must  be  made.  This 
change  must  be  made  by  a  separation  of  the  different 
ideas  of  this  heading  into  headings  each  containing  a 
single  statement.     It  would  then  read  as  follows :  — 

BRIEF  E 

The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work  of  re- 
forming the  criminal. 
Convicts  are  under  the  direct  and  responsible  con- 
trol of  the  prison  officers. 
The  contract  provides  that  the  contractor  shall 
have  no  control  over  the  discipline  of  the 
prison. 
The  convicts  are  taught  habits  of  industry. 

The  contract  provides  that  they   shall  be   con- 
tinually employed. 
Convicts   have   an   opportunity  to  learn  a  practi- 
cal trade. 

Rule  IV.     Headings  and  subheadings  should  con- 
tain- but  a  si7tgle  statement. 

Thus  far  we  have  seen  the  importance  of  so  stat- 
ing our  headings  that  the  main  and  the  subordinate 


150  Argumentation  and  Debate 

parts  shall  stand  in  their  proper  relations.  It  is  diffi- 
cult,  however,  to  suggest  the  varying  importance  of 
the  different  parts  simply  by  the  indentation  of  the 
margins  and  by  the  form  of  statement.  The  only 
way,  then,  seems  to  be  to  mark  the  various  headings 
by  symbols.  In  doing  this  some  definite  system  ought 
to  be  followed.  In  this  book  the  system  of  marking 
will  be  as  follows:  — 

I. 
A, 
I. 
a, 

X. 


II. 


A.   etc. 


Brief  E,  then,  with  these  marks,  or  symbols,  added 
will  read :  — 

BRIEF  F 

I.   The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work  of 
reforming  the  criminal. 

A.  Convicts  are  under  the  direct  and  respon- 
sible control  of  the  prison  officers. 

I.  The  contract  provides  that  the  contractor 
shall  have  no  control  over  the  discipline 
of  the  prison. 

B.  The  convicts  are  taught  habits  of  industry. 
I.   The  contract  provides  that  they  shall  be 

continually  employed. 

C.  Convicts   have   an   opportunity   to   learn   a 
practical  trade. 


Brief -Drawing  1 5 1 

Rule  V.  The  relatio7i  between  the  headings  and 
subheadings  should  be  indicated  by  means  of  letters, 
fimnbers,  or  other  symbols. 

In  applying  any  system  of  lettering  there  is  a  com- 
mon fault  which  leads  to  confusion,  namely,  using 
more  than  one  symbol  for  marking  a  single  heading. 
For  instance,  in  Brief  F,  the  marking  is  done  cor- 
rectly ;  but  a  beginner  in  argumentation  might  easily 
fall  into  the  mistake  of  marking  it  something  as 
follows :  — 

BRIEF  G 

A.    I.   Convicts  are  under  the  direct  and  responsible 
control  of  the  prison  officers. 

2.  The  convicts  are  taught  habits  of  industry. 

3.  Convicts  have  an  opportunity  to  learn  a  prac- 
tical trade. 

In  the  first  heading  of  Brief  G  the  reason  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer  for  marking  it  ^.  i  probably  is 
the  more  or  less  vague  idea  that  the  three  headings, 
numbered  i,  2,  3,  are  to  be  grouped  together.  He 
feels  that  these  headings  are  more  or  less  connected 
in  meaning,  so  he  puts  in  the  letter  A  to  indicate  the 
connection.  This  can  be  his  only  excuse  for  putting 
in  the  extra  letter,  for  otherwise  it  has  no  meaning 
whatever. 

However,  the  use  of  the  extra  letter  does  not  serve 
the  purpose  he  has  in  mind.  It  does  not  make  clear 
just  how  the  subheads  i,  2,  and  3  are  connected,  but 


152  Argumejitatiofi  and  Debate 

confuses  the  reader  by  making  him  stop  and  guess 
what  is  the  connection  between  them.  If  any  such 
headings  are  really  associated,  the  association  can 
be  made  clear  only  by  definitely  stating  the  con- 
necting idea,  in  a  separate  heading.  By  reference  to 
Brief  F  we  see  how  the  relation  of  the  ideas  is  rightly 
expressed.  The  subheadings  are  clearly  established 
in  their  proper  relations  to  one  another  by  stating  ih 
main  heading  (I)  the  larger  idea  of  which  they  are 
subordinate  parts.  So  we  have  the  inviolable  rule 
that  no  symbol  should  be  put  into  the  brief  unless  it 
marks  a  separate  and  distinct  heading  of  its  own. 

Rule  VI.  No  heading  or  subheading  should  be 
marked  with  more  than  07ie  symbol. 

We  have  now  a  fairly  distinct  idea  of  the  general 
rules  for  arranging  our  ideas  in  the  form  of  a  brief. 
But  there  are  certain  particular  requisites  that  are 
peculiar  to  the  three  divisions  of  the  brief,  the  intro- 
duction, the  discussion,  and  the  conclusion.  These 
three  parts  differ  from  one  another  in  many  ways, 
and  must  have  certain  rules  of  their  own,  in  accord- 
ance with  which  they  can  best  perform  their  respec- 
tive functions. 

Introduction 

The  most  important  rule  for  the  introduction  is  :  — 

Rule  VII.  The  introduction  should  contain  all 
the  information  necessary  for  the  understanding  of  the 
discussion. 


Brief-Drawing  153 

The  force  of  this  rule  is  obvious  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  introduction.  The  introduction  exists 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  way  for  the 
effective  operation  of  the  actual  proof;  and  it  has 
obviously  failed  in  its  purpose  if,  when  the  evidence 
and  arguments  are  presented  to  the  reader  or  hearer, 
by  reason  of  his  lack  of  information  about  the  ques- 
tion, he  is  incapable  of  understanding  the  proof. 

For  an  example  take  Brief  B.  We  find,  in  the 
discussion  proper,  references  to  "the  contract  sys- 
tem," "the  public- account  system,"  "the  piece-price 
system,"  terms  which  are  meaningless  to  any  man 
who  has  not  given  particular  study  to  the  question. 
Again,  we  find  the  most  important  points  of  the  proof 
to  be  concerned  with  "reformation,"  "competition 
with  free  labor,"  and  "profitableness";  these  words 
have  meaning  in  themselves,  but  we  cannot  see  the 
force  of  the  argumients  brought  forward  concerning 
them,  because  we  do  not  understand  why  these  points 
are  important  or  how  they  tend  to  prove  anything 
about  the  proposition.  The  introduction  in  this  case, 
in  the  first  place,  should  have  explained  the  import 
of  these  words  whose  meaning  is  not  clear  in  the  dis- 
cussion, i.e.  it  should  have  explained  the  piece-price 
system,  the  public-account  system,  and  the  contract 
system.  And,  in  the  second  place,  it  should  have  put 
the  reader  in  possession  of  the  facts  of  the  case  which 
are  necessary  in  order  to  make  clear  to  him  what  the 
real  points  of  issue  are,  and  how  the  proofs  in  the 
discussion  establish  these  points. 


154  Argumentation  a7id  Debate 

This  is  the  work  that  is  usually,  though  not  always, 
necessary  to  the  introduction,  viz.:  (i)  an  explana- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  proposition, 
and  of  all  the  other  important  terms  in  the  question 
that  need  explanation  in  order  to  be  perfectly  clear  in 
the  discussion ;  (2)  an  explanation  of  the  nature  of 
the  problem  in  dispute,  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
clear  the  real  nature  of  the  question  and  lead  up  to 
(3)  a  statement  of  the  issues;  and  (4)  the  partition, 
stating  the  points  to  be  made  by  the  disputant  in  try- 
ing to  establish  his  side  of  these  issues. 

The  explanation  of  the  terms  of  the  question  might 
take  form  somewhat  as  follows  :  — 

BRIEF  H 
Introduction 

I.   The  problem  of  the  employment  of  the  convict 
is  one  of  the  serious  questions  of  criminology. 

A.  It   is  admitted  that  convicts  must  be  em- 
ployed in  some  kind  of  work. 

B.  Several  different  systems  have  been  tried  in 
this  country. 

I.   The   principal   systems    are   the    piece- 
price  system,  the  public-account  system, 
and  the  contract  system. 
II.    The   three   systems   may  be  described   as  fol- 
lows :  — 

A.   The  characteristics  of  the  piece-price  system 
are  three :  — 
I.   Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 


Brief -Drawing  155 

or  corporations,  under  which  the  prison 
is  furnished  with  raw  material. 
'  2.  These  raw  materials  are  manufactured 
by  the  convicts  at  agreed  prices  per 
piece. 
3.  The  work  is  done  wholly  under  the  su- 
pervision of  prison  officials. 

B.  The  public-account  system  is  as  follows :  — 

1.  The  prison  buys  its  own  raw  materials. 

2.  The  prison  manufactures  like  a  private 
firm,  and  sells  in  the  best  available 
market. 

C.  The  contract  system  involves  the  following 
characteristics :  — 

1.  Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 
or  corporations,  under  which  convicts 
are  employed  at  certain  agreed  prices 
for    their    labor    for    fixed    periods    of 

.  time. 

2.  The  contractors  are  usually  furnished  by 
the  prison  with  power  and  machinery. 

3.  The  convicts  work  under  the  immediate 
direction  of  the  contractor,  but  subject 
to  the  supervision  of  the  prison  officials. 

The  work  of  explaining  the  nature  of  the  question, 
and  stating  the  points  to  be  proved,  is  essentially 
the  work  that  has  been  treated  of  in  Chapter  III, 
on  Finding  the  Issues.  By  analyzing  the  question, 
studying  the  history  of  its  discussion,  and  picking  out 


156  Argumentation  and  Debate 

the  points  that  are  vital  to  the  success  of  either  side, 
we  shall  find  that  the  settlement  of  the  question  de- 
pends on  the  decision  of  three  vital  points,  viz. : 
What  system  gives  the  best  financial  returns  ?  What 
system  is  most  effective  in  reforming  the  criminal? 
What  system  has  the  most  beneficial  effect  on  the 
general  welfare  of  the  free  labor  of  the  State  ? 

If  the  contract  system  can  be  shown  on  the  whole 
to  have  the  preponderance  of  virtue  in  these  respects, 
it  is  the  most  desirable  and  should  not  be  abolished. 
If,  judged  by  these  standards,  it  is  inferior  on  the 
whole  to  some  one  of  the  other  systems,  it  should  be 
abolished.  The  explanation  of  the  nature  of  the 
question  and  the  statement  of  the  issues  might,  then, 
take  form  as  follows :  — 

BRIEF  I 

III.  The  real  question  is  whether  one  of  the  other 
systems  would  best  'be  substituted  for  the 
contract  system. 

A.   The  value  of  each  system  must  be  judged 
by  three  standards  :  — 

1.  Are  the  financial  returns  satisfactory.? 

2.  How  does  it  affect  the  reformation  of 
the  criminal } 

3.  How  does  it  affect  the  general  welfare 
of  the  State } 

The  amount  of  explanation  required  in  a  brief 
depends  entirely  upon  the  nature  of   the  particular 


Brief-Drawing  157 

question.  In  the  brief  given  above,  Brief  H,  the 
explanation  of  the  nature  of  the  question  is  short  and 
takes  the  form  of  exposition.  In  treating  any  new 
or  uncommon  question,  full  and  detailed  explanations 
would  be  required,  in  order  to  give  the  reader  the 
information  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the 
issues  and  of  the  question  as  a  whole.  In  such  a 
generally  known  question  as  that  of  the  contract- 
labor  system,  little  explanation  was  necessary,  and  that 
simply  of  an  expository  nature.  But  very  often  the 
explanation  of  the  question  takes  the  form  of  a  nar- 
ration of  facts  or  a  history  of  the  question.  In  the 
court  room  it  commonly  consists  of  a  narration  of  the 
leading  facts  of  the  case  to  be  presented.  In  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  question,  "  Resolved,  that  United  States 
senators  should  be  elected  by  a  direct  vote  of  the 
people,"  the  explanation  would  take  a  similar  form. 
It  would  require  a  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Senate 
and  of  the  existing  form  of  election,  and  a  narration 
of  the  events  leading  up  to  the  agitation  for  popular 
election. 

Finally,  it  is  generally  desirable  to  state  the  points 
which  the  disputant  proposes  to  prove  in  order  to 
establish  his  case.  This  is  the  part  of  the  introduc- 
tion ordinarily  called  the  partition.  Though  the 
points  in  the  partition  may  well  correspond  quite 
closely  with  the  statement  of  the  issues,  they  are  not 
always  identical.  With  the  addition  of  this  statement 
of  the  points  of  the  proof,  the  completed  introduction 
might  read  as  follows  :  — 


158  Argumentation  and  Debate 

BRIEF  J 
Introduction 

I.    The  problem  of  the  employment  of  the  convict 
is  one  of  the  serious  questions  of  criminology. 

A.  It   is  admitted   that  convicts  must  be   em- 
ployed in  some  kind  of  work. 

B.  Several  different  systems  have  been  tried  in 
this  country. 

I.   The  principal  systems  are  the  piece-price 
system,  the  public-account  system,  and 
the  contract  system. 
II.   The  three  systems  may   be  described   as   fol- 
lows :  — 

A.  The  characteristics  of  the  piece-price  system 
are  three :  — 

1.  Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 
or  corporations,  under  which  the  prison 
is  furnished  with  raw  material. 

2.  These  raw  materials  are  manufactured 
by  the  convicts  at  agreed  prices  per  piece. 

3.  The  work  is  done  wholly  under  the  super- 
vision of  prison  officials. 

B.  The  public-account  system  is  as  follows:  — 

1.  The  prison  buys  its  own  raw  materials. 

2.  The  prison  manufactures  like  a  private 
firm  and  sells  in  the  best  available 
market. 

C.  The  contract  system  involves  the  following 
characteristics :  — 


Brief-Drawing  1 59 

1.  Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 
or  corporations,  under  which  convicts 
are  employed  at  certain  agreed  prices 
for  their  labor,  for  fixed  periods  of  time. 

2.  The  contractors  are  usually  furnished  by 
the  prison  with  power  and  machinery. 

3.  The  convicts  work  under  the  immediate 
direction  of  the  contractor,  but  subject 
to  the  supervision  of  the  prison  officials. 

III.  The  real  question  is,  whether  one  of  the  other 
systems  would  best  be  substituted  for  the  con- 
tract system. 

A.  The  value  of  each  system  must  be  judged 
by  three  standards :  — 

1.  Are  the  financial  returns  satisfactory } 

2.  How  does  it  affect  the  reformation  of 
the  criminal  1 

3.  How  does  it  affect  the  general  welfare 
of  the  State .? 

IV.  The  negative  intends  to  prove  its  case  by  estab- 
lishing four  facts :  — 

A.  The  contract  system  brings  the  best  financial 
returns. 

B.  The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work 
of  reforming  the  criminal. 

C.  Any  defects  of  the  system  can  be  remedied 
without  destroying  the  system. 

D.  The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable 
for  its  effect  on  the  general  welfare  of 
the  State. 


i6o  Argumentation  and  Debate 

This  introduction,  of  course,  is  susceptible  to  many 
changes  and  improvements,  but  it  fulfils  with  rea- 
sonable accuracy  the  functions  of  a  good  introduction 
for  this  particular  question.  In  addition  to  Rule  VII, 
which  is  explanatory  of  the  general  nature  of  this 
part  of  the  brief,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
there  are  generally  three  things  necessary  in  the 
introduction,  in  order  to  make  it  conform  to  this 
general  rule:  (i)  a  definition  and  explanation  of  all 
the  terms  of  the  proposition  and  of  any  other  impor- 
tant terms  in  the  discussion  that  need  explanation; 
(2)  an  explanation  of  the  nature  and  real  meaning  of 
the  question  as  found  by  analyzing  its  essential  parts, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  up  to  {1)2,  statement  of  the 
issues  and  of  the  points  to  be  proved  by  the  disputant 
in  estabHshing  his  case.  These  three  elements  of  the 
introduction  are,  however,  variable  in  importance, 
and  their  necessity  is  not  in  all  cases  so  imperative 
as  to  make  them  all  properly  part  of  our  Rules  for 
Brief-drawing.  But  the  statement  of  the  issues  and 
of  the  points  to  be  proved  in  the  discussion  is  so 
important  as  to  justify  the  incorporation  of  it  among 
the  principles  of  good  brief-drawing.  We  have  seen 
how  indispensable  it  is  for  the  disputant  himself  to 
find  and  understand  the  issues ;  it  is  also  generally 
desirable  that  the  reader  or  hearer  understand  them. 
For  him,  as  for  the  writer  himself,  it  is  knowledge  of 
the  issues  that  helps  him  to  get  a  clear  view  of  the 
real  question  in  its  entirety ;  it  is  the  issues  that 
enable  him  to  follow  readily  the  subsequent  develop- 


Brief-Drawing  i6i 

ment  of  the  proof ;  it  is  by  an  understanding  of  the 
issues  that  he  may  be  made  to  feel  the  force  of  the 
evidence  and  the  arguments,  and  their  full  effect 
upon  the  proposition. 

The  work  of  explaining  the  issues  is  like  the  work 
of  the  mill-race.  The  waters  of  the  river  go  rushing 
by  with  impressive  sound  and  force ;  but  they  do  not 
make  paper  or  spin  cotton  till  the  raceway  gathers 
in  their  power  and  directs  it  straight  at  the  turbine 
wheel.  So  evidence,  arguments,  and  proof  of  all 
kinds  may  impress  an  audience  with  their  volume 
and  loud  sound,  but  they  do  not  actually  convince 
anybody  until  they  are  controlled  and  effectively 
directed  straight  at  the  proposition.  This  is  the 
true  work  of  the  issues.  They  are  the  agency  by 
which  the  proofs  given  in  the  discussion  are  brought 
into  connection  with  the  proposition,  in  such  a  way 
that  every  blow  in  the  proof  strikes  the  question 
fairly  and  helps  the  disputant  to  win  his  cause.  It 
is  sometimes  desirable,  as  a  matter  of  tact,  to  conceal 
the  points  to  be  proved  in  the  discussion ;  but  such 
cases  are  exceptional,  and  are  more  properly  pro- 
vided for  in  the  presentation  than  in  the  drawing  of 
the  brief. 

Rule  VIII.  The  introdtiction  should  generally 
contain  a  statement  of  the  issues  and  of  the  points 
to  be  proved  in  the  discussion. 

There  is  one  other  desirable  precept  with  respect 
to  the  making  of  an  introduction  :  — 


1 62  Argumentation  arid  Debate 

Rule  IX.  The  introdziction  should  contain  only 
statements,  the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  both 
sides. 

To  recur  again  to  the  general  principles  of  arrange- 
ment, the  introduction  never  exists  for  its  own  sake, 
and  does  not  properly  contain  the  proof  of  the  propo- 
sition. It  is  the  servant  of  the  discussion  and  merely 
preparatory  in  nature.  If  we  put  into  it  prejudiced 
statements,  that  an  opponent  must  deny  and  that  we 
must  consequently  support  by  proof,  it  is  no  longer 
an  introduction,  but  merely  one  part  of  the  discus- 
sion. We  have  destroyed  our  real  introduction 
entirely.  This  is  a  serious  mistake,  for  with  very 
few  exceptions  it  is  indispensable  to  success  that  the 
minds  of  readers  or  of  an  audience  be  prepared  for 
the  reception  of  the  proofs  before  they  are  thrust 
upon  them,  and  this  work  cannot  be  well  done  if  the 
writer  is  actually  arguing,  and  fighting  an  opponent 
all  the  way.  There  is  nothing  in  the  work  of  the 
introduction  to  require  any  prejudice  or  controversial 
attitude  to  make  it  effective.  It  is  merely  an  expla- 
nation of  the  matters  that  the  disputants  are  reasoning 
about,  and  of  the  facts  that  the  audience  must  know 
in  order  to  follow  and  understand  the  real  discussion. 
The  writings  and  speeches  of  the  masters  of  the 
argumentative  art  all  show  their  appreciation  of  the 
true  functions  of  the  introduction  and  of  the  neces- 
sity of  keeping  it  free  from  signs  of  prejudice.  Al- 
though it  may  seem  at  the  moment  to  be  helpful  to 


Brief-Drawing  163 

put  a  little  unfairness  and  prejudice  in  at  the  begin- 
ning, it  turns  out  in  the  end  that  the  final  effect 
is  surer,  if  we  withhold  our  proof  till  the  proper  time 
and  place,  and  use  the  introduction  for  its  rightful 
purposes. 

The  Discussion 

The  discussion  contains  the  real  proofs  of  the 
composition.  These  proofs  are  always  of  the  nature 
of  flights  of  stairs  ascending  from  different  directions 
toward  the  proposition.  There  are  the  smallest  de- 
tails of  evidence,  which  serve  to  establish  certain 
facts ;  these  facts  go  to  prove  some  larger  facts ; 
and  so  on,  till  all  meet  and  are  made  one  in  the 
proposition  itself. 

Now  there  are  two  ways  in  which  these  proofs  may 
be  arranged  to  make  clear  this  relation  to  one  an- 
other. By  one  method  we  proceed  from  lesser  to 
greater;  the  smallest  details  are  stated  first,  then 
follow  the  facts  these  details  are  meant  to  prove,  and 
finally  the  result  of  it  all  is  stated  in  the  proposition. 
C  is  true,  hence  B  is  true ;  B  is  true,  hence  A  is  true, 
and  so  on. 

The  other  method  is  just  the  inverse  of  this.  The 
fact  that  is  directly  connected  with  the  proposition  is 
put  first;  next  come  the  facts  that  are  the  reasons 
for  the  truth  of  these  facts  that  were  first  alleged ; 
then,  following  in  series,  are  the  lesser  and  still  lesser 
ideas,  each  statement  reading  as  a  reason  for  the 
truth  of  the  statement  next  above  it.  A  is  true  be- 
cause B  is  true ;  B  is  true  because  C  is  true,  etc. 


164  Argumentation  and  Debate 

The  first  method  may  be  illustrated  briefly  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

a.  The  convicts  are  generally  employed  within  the 
walls  of  the  prison,  and 

b.  The  instructors  employed  by  the  contractors  are 
under  the  control  of  the  prison  officers,  and 

c.  The  conditions  of  the  employment  of  the  convict 
are  specified  in  the  contract  or  by  legislation ; 
hence :  — 

I.   The  system  gives  opportunity  for  proper  con- 
trol of  the  convicts,  hence :  — 
A.    Deficiences   in   reformatory  methods   and 
prison    discipline    can    be    remedied    by 
careful  administration,  therefore:  — 
III.   Any   defects   in   the   contract    system   can   be 
remedied  without  destroying  the  system. 

Thb  second  method  would  make  this  part  of  the 
brief  read  as  follows :  — 

III.  Any  defects  in  the  contract  system  can  be 
remedied  without  destroying  the  system  be- 
cause, 

A.  Deficiencies  in  reformatory  methods  and 
prison  discipline  can  be  remedied  by  careful 
administration,  for, 

I.   The  system  gives  opportunity  for  proper 
control  of  the  convicts,  for, 
a.   The  convicts  are  generally  employed 
within  the  walls  of  the  prison. 


Brief-Drawing  165 

b.  The  instructors  employed  by  the  con- 
tractors are  under  the  control  of  the 
prison  officers. 

c.  The  conditions  of  the  employment  of 
the  convict  are  specified  in  the  con- 
tract or  by  legislation. 

For  the  purposes  of  drawing  a  brief,  the  second 
method  is  clearly  far  better  than  the  first.  In  some 
cases  it  is  wise  in  presenting  proof  to  conceal  till  the 
end  the  point  that  is  being  proved,  but  these  cases 
are  exceptional ;  and  even  where  such  concealment 
is  desirable,  it  is  properly  carried  out  in  the  final 
presentation  rather  than  in  the  making  of  the  brief. 
The  defects  of  the  first  method,  which  may  per- 
haps be  called  the  "hence  and  therefore"  method, 
are  obvious.  When  a  brief  or  an  argument  founded 
upon  such  a  brief  is  presented,  the  reader  or  hearer 
does  not  understand  what  the  disputant  is  "driving 
at,"  till  after  long  wanderings  he  reaches  the  point 
to  be  proved;  then  the  reader  is  forced  to  go  back 
over  all  the  ground  again,  in  order  to  estimate  the 
real  force  of  what  he  has  been  reading,  and  an  audi- 
ence, who  cannot  be  given  the  privilege  of  hearing  it 
explained  again,  have  irretrievably  lost  many  of  the 
good  points  of  the  proof. 

Again,  the  "hence  and  therefore"  arrangement 
has  the  disadvantage  of  presenting  a  deceptive  ap- 
pearance to  the  eye.  It  puts  the  least  important 
proof  in  the   most   prominent   places  and  makes   it 


1 66  Argumentation  and  Debate 

hard  to  appreciate,  at  a  glance,  the  real  coordmation 
of  the  points.  Finally,  it  makes  the  work  of  lettering 
and  numbering  difficult. 

So  we  arrive  at  the  two  most  important  rules  for 
the  discussion,  the  rules  that  are  the  fundamentals 
of  clearness  in  the  arrangement  of  the  proof  in  the 
form  of  a  brief  :  — 

Rule  X.  In  the  discussion^  each  main  heading 
should  read  as  a  reason  for  the  trtcth  or  falsity  of 
the  proposition. 

Rule  XL  In  the  discussion^  each  subheading  or 
series  of  subheadings  should  read  as  a  reason  for  the 
truth  of  the  heading  above  it. 

The  last  rule  of  the  discussion  may  be  stated  as 
follows :  — 

Rule  XII.  In  phrasing  refutation,  the  heading 
should  clearly  state  the  argument  to  be  answered. 

This  precept  is  of  great  importance,  because  it 
guards  against  a  serious  error.  Refutation  is  the 
name  that  is  given  to  any  attack  directed  against  the 
proof  of  an  opponent.  With  the  importance  of  refu- 
tation and  the  methods  of  handling  it,  we  are  not  now 
concerned ;  but  there  must  always  be  more  or  less  of 
it  in  any  brief,  and  its  effectiveness  depends  very 
largely  upon  the  way  it  is  introduced.  The  writer  of 
a  brief,  knowing  in  his  own  mind  what  is  the  position 
of  his  opponent  which  he  desires  to  assail,  very  natu- 
rally falls  into  the  mistake  of  unconsciously  attributing 


Brief-Drawing  167 

a  like  knowledge  to  others,  and  so  goes  on  to  array 
his  answers,  without  making  clear  to  his  audience  or 
readers  just  what  it  is  he  is  answering.  This  careless- 
ness often  proves  troublesome ;  for  in  order  to  make 
refutation  achieve  its  purposes,  it  is  necessary  that  the 
attention  of  an  audience  be  first  directed  toward  the 
exact  point  in  controversy,  in  order  that  they  may 
see  the  comparison  of  the  two  sides  and  so  feel  the 
destructive  force  of  the  answer. 

For  example,  it  is  urged  by  opponents  of  the 
contract  system,  that  the  system  enables  the  prison 
authorities  and  the  contractors  to  become  rich  at  the 
expense  of  the  prisoners.  In  refuting  this  point,  the 
student  would  be  guilty  of  ambiguity  if  he  should 
say,  "  The  contract  system  does  not  allow  the  prison 
authorities  and  the  contractors  to  become  rich  at  the 
expense  of  the  prisoners."  It  might  very  naturally 
be  supposed  from  the  statement  that  this  is  a  point 
of  positive  proof  rather  than  a  point  in  refutation, 
that  the  writer  is  upholding  this  as  one  of  the  virtues 
of  the  system.  This  makes  his  proof  weak,  for  he  is 
"  damning  the  system  with  faint  praise."  Again,  this 
statement  of  the  point  might  be  interpreted  to  mean, 
that  the  writer  was  comparing  the  contract  system 
with  other  systems,  and  declaring  it  to  be  preferable 
in  this  respect.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  he  means 
is,  that  the  arguments  made  by  his  opponent  to  prove 
this  objection  to  the  contract  system  are  false.  To 
make  his  position  clear  and  to  bring  his  own  argu- 
ments into  proper  contrast  with  those  of  his  opponent, 


1 68  Argumentation  and  Debate 

he  should  have  stated  his  refutation  something  as 
follows  :  "  The  objection  that  this  system  allows  the 
prison  authorities  and  the  contractors  to  become  rich 
at  the  expense  of  the  prisoners  is  groundless,  for,"  etc. 
This  is,  in  general,  the  desirable  way  to  phrase 
refutation ;  state  briefly  and  clearly  the  argument  to 
be  answered,  and  suggest  the  general  nature  of  the 
answer.  As  for  instance,  "  The  contention  that  free 
silver  causes  prosperity  is  founded  upon  a  false  as- 
sumption, for,"  etc.  **The  evidence  of  Madden  that 
Swift  was  married  to  Stella  Johnson  is  unreliable, 
for,"  etc.  "  The  argument  that  the  incorporation  of 
labor  unions  will  prevent  strikes  is  weak,  for,"  etc. 
Whatever  the  form  of  the  statement,  it  should  so  pro- 
claim the  argument  to  be  answered  that  the  attention 
of  a  reader  or  hearer  cannot  be  misdirected. 

The  Conclusion 

The  function  of  the  conclusion  in  the  brief  is 
obvious  from  the  word  itself.  Its  duty  is  merely  to 
sum  up  the  essential  points  that  have  been  established 
by  the  proof,  and  to  make  clear  their  bearing  as  a 
whole  on  the  proposition.  This  work  is  best  done 
by  a  summary  in  brief  form,  lettered  and  numbered. 

The  summary  should  generally  contain  a  statement 
of  all  the  main  headings  of  the  discussion,  and  of  as 
many  of  the  subheadings  as  are  necessary  finally  to 
present  the  proof  as  a  whole.  An  illustration  of  the 
form  of  such  summary  is  given  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  brief  printed  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


Brief -Drawing  169 

Rule  XIII.  The  conclusion  should  contain  a  sum- 
mary of  the  essential  points  of  the  proof. 

The  following  brief  is,  with  slight  emendations,  a 
student's  brief  presented  in  class  work.  It  is  not  pre-* 
sented  as  perfect  or  as  approaching  perfection,  but  it 
illustrates  the  principles  that  work  toward  the  making 
of  a  brief,  effectively  embodying  the  general  laws  of 
the  arrangement  of  materials. 

Introduction 

I.   The  problem  of  the  employment  of  the  convict 
is  one  of  the  serious  questions  of  criminology. 

A.  It  is  admitted  that  convicts  must  be  em- 
ployed in  some  kind  of  work. 

B.  Several  different  systems  have  been  tried  in 
this  country. 

I.   The  principal  systems  are  the  piece-price 
system,  the  public-account  system,  and 
the  contract  system. 
II.   These  three  systems  may  be  described  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

A.   The  characteristics  of  the  piece-price  system 
are  three :  — 

1.  Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 
or  corporations  under  which  the  prison 
is  furnished  with  raw  materials. 

2.  These  raw  materials  are  manufactured 
by  the  convicts  at  agreed  prices  per 
piece. 


I/O  Argumentation  and  Debate 

3.  The  work  is  done  wholly  under  the  su- 
pervision of  prison  officials. 

B.  The  public-account  system  is  as  follows :  — 
.  I.   The  prison  buys  its  own  raw  materials. 

2.  The  prison  manufactures  like  a  private 
firm,  and  sells  in  the  best  available 
market. 

C,  The  contract  system  involves  the  following 
characteristics :  — 

1.  Contracts  are  made  with  persons,  firms, 
or  corporations,  under  which  convicts 
are  employed  at  certain  agreed  prices 
for  their  labor,  for  fixed  periods  of  time. 

2.  The  contractors  are  usually  furnished  by 
the  prison  with  power  and  machinery. 

3.  The  convicts  work  under  the  immediate 
direction  of  the  contractor,  but  subject 
to  the  supervision  of  the  prison  officials. 

III.  The  real  question  is  whether  some  one  of  the 
other  systems  would  best  be  substituted  for  the 
contract  system. 

A.   The  value  of  each  system  must  be  judged 
by  three  standards  :  — 

1.  Are  the  financial  returns  satisfactory } 

2.  How  does  it  affect  the  reformation  of 
the  criminal.? 

3.  How  does  it  affect  the  general  welfare 
of  the  State } 

IV.  The  negative  intends  to  prove  its  case  by  estab- 
lishing four  facts :  — 


Brief-Drawing  171 

A.  The  contract  system  brings  the  best  finan- 
cial returns. 

B.  The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work 
of  reforming  the  criminal. 

C.  Any  defects  of  the  system  can  be  remedied 
without  destroying  it. 

D.  The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable 

for  its  effect  on  the  general  welfare  of  the 

State. 

Discussion 

I.   The  contract  system  brings  the  best  financial 

returns,  because, 

A.   The   system  avoids  expenses  necessary  in 

the  other  systems,  for, 

1.  It  avoids  the  expense  of  machinery. 

2.  It  avoids  the  necessity  of  supplying  work- 
ing capital. 

3.  It  avoids  the  employment  of  high-priced 
officials  and  salesmen. 

4.  It  avoids  the  risks  and  losses  of  trade. 

5.  It   diminishes  opportunities  for  pecula- 
tion, because, 

a.  Extravagance  and  peculation  are  com- 
mon under  the  other  systems,  for, 
X.  The  Commissioner  of  Labor  of 
New  York  declares,  "The  large 
outlay  of  funds  under  the  public- 
account  system  gave  opportunity 
for  wholesale  extravagance  and 
peculation." 


1/2  Argumentation  a?td  Debate 

B.  The  public-account  system  is  seriously  de- 
fective from  a  financial  standpoint,  for, 

1.  In  Illinois  in  four  years  and  five  months 
the  loss  to  the  state  was  ^314,212. 

2.  In  New  York  it  was  found  that  the 
expenses  of  the  sales  department  were 
such  as  to  make  the  system  financially 
impracticable. 

C.  According  to  the  report  of  the  United  States 
Commission  of  Labor,  the  income  of  this 
system  is  sixty-five  per  cent  of  the  running 
expenses  of  the  prison. 

D.  The  Commission,  comparing  this  system 
with  others,  declares  these  returns  to  be 
more  satisfactory  than  those  from  any  other 
system,  for, 

I.   This  Commission  says,  "In  a  financial 
sense  the  contract   system   is  the  most 
profitable  of  any  to  the  State,  except  the 
so-called  lease  system." 
II.   The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work 
of  reforming  the  criminal,  because, 
A.   The  convicts  are  under  the  direct  and  re- 
sponsible control  of  the  State,  for, 

1.  In  every  contract  there  is  a  clause  pro- 
viding that  the  contractor  shall  have 
no  control  over,  and  shall  in  no  way 
interfere  with,  prison  discipline. 

2.  Punishment  cannot  be  inflicted  on  the 
complaint  of  instructors  without  full  in- 
vestigation by  the  wardens. 


Brief-Drawing  173 

3.  The  penalty  for  any  violation  of  the 
rules  by  a  contractor  or  instructor  is 
immediate  dismissal. 

B.  The  system  teaches  the  prisoner  a  practical 
trade  by  which  he  can  earn  an  honest  living 
after  release,  because, 

1.  The  Labor  Commissioners  of  New  York 
say  that  the  convicts  learn  exactly  the 
same  trades  and  specialize  in  the  same 
way  as  in  factories  and  other  places  of 
work  outside. 

2.  It  proved  effective  in  Pennsylvania  in 
teaching  trades  for  practice  after  leaving 
the  prison. 

C.  It  teaches  habits  of  industry,  because, 

I.    Under  it  the  convict  must  be  constantly 
employed,  for, 
a.   The   contractor   engages  to   keep   a 

certain  number  of   men    continually 

employed. 

D.  The  contract  system  promotes  the  health  of 
the  convicts,  because, 

I.   Mr.  Pillsbury  of  New  York  says  that  the 
system  is  very  beneficial  to  the  health 
of    the    convicts,    and    that    they  leave 
the  prison  in  better  physical  condition 
than  when  they  came. 
III.    Any   defects   in   the   contract   system    can   be 
remedied   without    destroying   the   system,  be- 
cause, 


1/4  Argumentation  and  Debate 

A.  Deficiencies  in  reformatory  methods  and 
prison  discipline  can  be  remedied  by  care- 
ful administration,  for, 

1.  The  system  gives  opportunity  for  proper 
control  of  the  convicts,  for, 

a.  The  convicts  are  generally  employed 
within  the  walls  of  the  prison. 

b.  The  instructors  employed  by  the  con- 
tractors are  under  the  control  of  the 
prison  officers. 

c.  The  conditions  of  the  employment  of 
the  convict  are  specified  in  the  con- 
tract or  by  legislation. 

2.  The  work  of  reform  depends  largely 
upon  the  character  of  the  officers  in 
charge. 

3.  The  character  of  the  officials  can  be  im- 
proved by  legislation,  for, 

a.  Making  the  offices  non-partisan  would 
remove  inefficiency  due  to  politics. 

b.  Efficiency  of  the  officers  would  be  im- 
proved by  making  the  term  of  office 
permanent  during  good  behavior. 

B.  Any  possible  evils  of  competition  can  be 
remedied  by  legislation,  because, 

1.  Competition  can  be  prevented  by  limit- 
ing the  production  of  any  article  by  con- 
victs to  one-tenth  of  the  total  product  in 
that  State. 

2.  Competition  could  be  lessened  by  pro- 


Brief- Drawing-  1 75 

viding  for  a  greater  diversity  of  products 
by  the  convicts,  for, 

a.   The    Labor   Commissioner    of    Mas- 
sachusetts   recommends    this    as    a 
remedy. 
3.   Competition  could  be  lessened  by  a  law 
requiring  the   public   advertisement   for 
proposals  for  contracts,  because, 
a.   This  would  tend  to  prevent  injuriously 
low  prices  in  competition,  for, 
X,   The    advertisement    of    the    pro- 
posals  would    raise   the    cost   of 
production   to   the  contractor  by 
stimulating    competition    in    bids 
for  the  labor. 
IV.   The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable  for 
its  effect  on  the  general  welfare  of  the  State, 
because, 

A.  The  argument  that  the  competition  of  con- 
vict labor  with  free  labor  under  the  con- 
tract system  is  detrimental  to  the  welfare 
of  the  State  is  weak,  for, 

1.  The  competition  must  exist  under  any 
system  of  employment,  because, 

a.   The  products  of  the  convict  must  be 
sold  in  the  market. 

2.  The  competition  is  more  serious  under 
the  public-account  system,  for, 

a.   Goods  can  be  sold  below  the  market 
price  in  competition,  because, 


1/6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

X.    The   state  cannot  be  forced  into 

bankruptcy. 
y.    The  whole  cost  of  production  is 

the  cost  of  the  material. 

b.  The  tendency  is  to  centralize  manu- 
factures on  a  few  lines  of  production, 
for, 

X.    It  is  impossible  to  manage  many 
different  lines  of  manufacturing. 

c.  The  United    States    Industrial   Com- 

mission says,  "  It  has  been  shown 
by  numerous  investigations  that  under 
the  pubHc-account  system  there  is 
greater  competition  with  the  products 
of  free  labor  than  under  any  other." 
3.  The  competition  is  at  least  no  less  harm- 
ful under  the  piece-price  system,  because, 

a.  The  Industrial  Commission  in  their 
report  of  1900  say  that  the  piece- 
price  system  does  not  affect  the 
competition  with  free  labor. 

b.  The  first  biennial  report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  of  California  declares  that 
under  the  piece-price  system  the 
effects  of  competition  were  no  dif- 
ferent from  the  effects  under  the 
contract  system. 

c.  The  Prison  Labor  Reform  Commis- 
sion of  New  York  stated  that,  in 
practical    operation,    the    piece-price 


Brief -Drawing  177 

system   was   shown   to  be  more  op- 
pressive   to    competitive    free    labor 
than  the  contract  system. 
d.    In  New  Jersey  this  system  was  found 
to  be  worse  in  its  competitive  effects 
than  the  contract  system. 
B.    It  is  conducive  to  the  effective  administra- 
tion of  the  prison,  for, 

1.  The  officers  of  the  prison  are  chosen 
solely  for  their  efficiency  as  prison 
keepers,  for, 

a.   They  are  not  required  to  act  as  busi- 
ness managers,  because 
X,   The  manufacturing  is  done  under 
the  direction  of  outside  contrac- 
tors. 

2.  The  contract  system  restricts  prisons  to 
the  use  for  which  they  are  intended,  for, 
a.    It   relieves  the   management   of   the 

prison  from  the  necessity  of  managing 
large  manufacturing  establishments, 
as  under  the  other  systems. 

Conclusion 
The  negative  has  proved  the  following :  — 

I.    The  contract  system   brings  the  best  financial 
returns,  because, 

A.    It  avoids  expenses  necessary  in  the  other 
systems. 


178  Argumentation  and  Debate 

B.  The  public-account  system  is  seriously  de- 
fective financially. 

C.  The  income  from  the  contract  system  is  sixty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  running  expenses. 

D.  Students  of  the  subject  declare  that  the 
returns  are  largest  from  the  contract  system. 

II.   The  contract  system  is  effective  in  the  work  of 
reforming  the  criminal,  for, 

A.  The  convicts  are  under  the  direct  control  of 
the  State. 

B.  The  system  furnishes  a  trade  to  the  con- 
vict, and  thus  furnishes  a  means  of  honest 
livelihood  on  his  release. 

C.  The  convict  is  taught  habits  of  industry. 

D.  The  contract  system  promotes  the  health  of 
the  convicts. 

III.  Any  defects  in  the  contract  system  can  be  reme- 
died without  destroying  the  system,  for, 

A.  Disciplinary  and  reformatory  deficiencies 
can  be  remedied  by  careful  administration. 

B.  Any  possible  evils  of  competition  can  be 
remedied  by  legislation. 

IV.  The  contract  system  is  the  most  desirable  for  its 
effect  on  the  general  welfare  of  the  State,  for, 

A.  The  argument  that  it  introduces  undesirable 
competition  with  free  labor  is  weak. 

B.  It  gives  effective  prison  administration. 

We  therefore  maintain  that  the  contract  system  of 
employing  convict  labor  should  not  be  abolished. 


Brief-Drawing  1 79 

RULES   FOR   BRIEF-DRAWING 
General  Rules 

I.  The  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts, 
marked  respectively,  introduction,  discussion,  and 
conclusion. 

II.  The  ideas  in  the  brief  should  be  arranged  in 
the  form  of  headings  and  subheadings. 

III.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should  be  in 
the  form  of  a  complete  statement. 

IV.  Each  heading  and  subheading  should  contain 
but  a  single  statement. 

V.  The  relation  between  the  headings  and  the  sub- 
headings should  be  indicated  by  means  of  letters, 
numbers,  or  other  symbols. 

VI.  No  heading  or  subheading  should  be  marked 
with  more  than  one  symbol. 

Rules  for  Introduction 

VII.  The  introduction  should  contain  all  the  infor- 
mation necessary  for  an  understanding  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

VIII.  The  introduction  should  generally  contain 
a  statement  of  the  issues  and  of  the  points  to  be 
proved  in  the  discussion. 

IX.  The  introduction  should  contain  only  state- 
ments the  truth  of  which  is  admitted  by  both  sides. 

Rules  for  Discussion 

X.  In  the  discussion,  each  main  heading  should  read 
as  a  reason  for  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  proposition. 


i8o  Argumentation  and  Debate 

XI.  Each  subheading  or  series  of  subheadings 
should  read  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of  the  heading 
above  it. 

XII.  In  phrasing  refutation  the  heading  should 
state  clearly  the  argument  to  be  answered. 

Rule  for  Conclusion 

XIII.  The  conclusion  should  contain  a  summary 
of  the  essential  points  of  the  proof. 

In  concluding  this  chapter  there  is  one  other  matter 
of  detail,  to  which  reference  should  be  made,  though 
it  is  a  matter  of  individual  discretion  rather  than  of 
rule  or  precept,  that  is  the  method  of  inserting  refer- 
ences to  authorities.  The  method  may  be  adopted 
which  is  used  in  the  text  of  the  present  volume,  of 
putting  numbers  in  the  body  of  the  text  (or  brief)  with 
the  title  and  exact  citation  of  the  authority  appended 
at  the  foot  of  the  page.  Or,  it  is  simpler,  and  just  as 
clear,  merely  to  add  the  reference  at  the  end  of  the 
quotation  or  statement  which  it  supports.  Probably 
the  best  method,  on  the  whole,  and  the  one  to  be 
recommended,  is  to  insert  the  reference  in  the  margin 
of  the  brief,  opposite  the  heading  in  connection  with 
which  it  is  quoted. 

Vv'^hatever  the  method,  the  exact  citation  for  every 
authority  used  should  always  be  given. 


BOOK   IV.     PRESENTATION 
CHAPTER   I 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  PRESENTATION 

Under  invention,  selection,  and  arrangement,  we 
have  considered  the  methods  of  finding  materials,  of 
estimating  their  value,  and  of  arranging  them  so  as 
best  to  utilize  their  strength.  The  product  of  our 
work  has  been  embodied  in  a  brief.  It  sometimes 
happens  that  our  preparation  ends  here;  the  brief 
itself  may  be  the  presentation  of  our  argument.  But 
as  a  rule  other  preparation  is  required.  The  brief 
is  usually  but  the  foundation-stones  and  the  beams 
which  sustain  and  shape  the  building,  but  which  in 
the  end  are  hidden  from  view  by  outward  forms  that 
are  more  sightly  and  more  useful.  To  achieve  our 
purposes,  we  generally  need  to  put  the  materials  in 
more  pleasing  and  effective  rhetorical  form. 

Now,  in  this  ultimate  presentation  of  the  proof, 
we  need  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  labors  of  argumen- 
tation are  twofold.  In  our  earlier  consideration  of 
the  general  nature  of  the  art,  we  have  seen  that  there 
are  two  elements  in  all  argumentation:  (i)  convic- 
tion, or  the  appeal  to  the  reason,  which  is  the  act  of 
inducing  another  to  accept  the  truth  of  an  idea  or 
proposition  ;  and  (2)  persuasion,  or  the  appeal  to  the 

i8x 


1 82  Argiime^itation  and  Debate 

emotions,  which  is  the  act  of  moving  the  will  of  an- 
other by  affecting  his  feelings.  We  have  further  seen 
that  both  are  essential  to  effectiveness. 

How  much  conviction  and  how  much  persuasion 
to  use  must  be  determined  by  circumstances.  In  an 
intercollegiate  debate,  the  element  of  persuasion  is 
slight.  It  is  usually  no  more  than  tact  and  vigor  in 
the  work  of  conviction.  The  lawyer  before  the  jury 
needs  a  judicious  mixture  of  both.  Danton  before 
the  French  Convention  made  his  appeal  wholly  to 
the  most  turbulent  passions  of  a  passionate  mob. 
But  though  the  relative  amounts  of  the  two  ele- 
ments may  vary,  both  are  almost  always  necessary 
for  success. 

Conviction 

The  most  important  work  of  conviction  is  done 
when  the  brief  is  completed.  When  the  materials 
have  been  gathered  and  arranged,  it  only  remains  to 
put  the  proof  in  words  that  will  impress  it  clearly 
and  forcibly  on  the  understanding  of  those  we  would 
convince.  To  be  able  to  do  this,  obviously  the  first 
requisite  is  a  knowledge  of  rhetoric.  The  effect  of 
well-arranged  and  well-chosen  proofs  is  often  neu- 
tralized by  confused  and  halting  English.  The  man 
who  cannot  express  himself  is  always  a  weakling  in 
argumentation. 

Then,  in  addition  to  the  general  principles  of  rheto- 
ric, there  are  certain  adaptations  of  these  rhetorical 
principles  to  the  peculiar  work  of  argumentation. 


General  Priyiciples  of  Presentation  183 

A  general  treatment  of  rhetorical  forms  lies  be- 
yond the  necessary  limits  of  this  book.-  The  prin- 
ciples that  are  peculiar  to  argumentative  composition 
will  be  treated  in  the  following  chapters  on  the  intro- 
duction, the  discussion,  and  the  conclusion. 

Persuasion 

Persuasion  has  been  defined  as  the  act  of  moving 
the  will  by  affecting  the  emotions.  The  ultimate  aim 
of  argumentation  is  to  make  others  believe  as  we 
desire.  This  can  be  done  only  through  the  medium 
of  the  will.  If  the  volition  of  the  audience  or  reader 
is  left  untouched,  our  strivings  are  in  vain.  Conse- 
quently, it  is  the  work  of  persuasion  to  establish  a 
connection  between  the  will  and  the  ideas  communi- 
cated to  the  intellect  by  conviction.  But  the  moving 
power  of  the  human  will  is  emotion.  So  that  per- 
suasion is  an  appeal  to  the  emotions. 

Persuasion  may  come  before  conviction,  or  after, 
it,  or  the  two  may  accompany  one  another  at  each 
step.  We  may  touch  the  emotions  first,  to  prepare 
them  for  the  reception  of  the  proof  to  come.  We 
may  first  convince,  and  afterward  carry  over  the 
effects  on  the  intellect  till  they  reach  and  com- 
pel the  will.  We  may  —  and  with  best  results  — 
play  on  reason  and  emotion  simultaneously,  and 
so  keep  understanding  and  volition  always  in  sym- 
pathy. However  it  is  done,  the  essential  thing  is, 
that,   in    some    way,   reason   and   emotion    shall   be 


184  Argtimentatio7i  and  Debate 

brought  together  and  made  cooperant  to  the  com- 
mon end. 

Professor  Robinson,  in  his  excellent  book  on  "  Fo- 
rensic Oratory,"  has  given  a  classification  of  the  emo- 
tions that  it  is  sometimes  helpful  to  have 'in  mind. 

"  That  fundamental  principle  out  of  which  all  noble 
impulses  arise  is  the  tendency  of  human  nature  toward 
perfection.  .  .  .  Perfection  is  predicable  of  human  na- 
ture as  to  its  action,  as  to  its  character,  and  as  to  its 
attainment.  A  man  is  perfect  as  to  action  when  he  fulfils 
his  duty;  as  to  character,  when  his  predominant  ideas 
and  impulses  are  pure  and  virtuous ;  as  to  attainment, 
when  he  possesses  the  highest  happiness  which  human 
nature  is  able  to  enjoy.  And  thus  in  actual  life  the 
fundamental  tendency  toward  perfection  manifests  itself 
in  three  subordinate  tendencies :  the  tendency  toward 
duty,  the  tendency  toward  virtue,  and  the  tendency  toward 
happiness.  ... 

"These  natural  dispositions  render  the  heart  susceptible 
to  certain  impulses,  each  of  which  corresponds  to  some 
one  of  the  many  forms  in  which  the  ideas  of  duty,  virtue, 
and  happiness  are  presented  to  the  mind.  The  idea  of 
duty  yet  to  be  fulfilled  awakens  zeal ;  of  duty  heretofore 
performed,  complacency;  of  duty  which  another  had 
omitted,  anger ;  of  duty  as  discharged  by  another,  appro- 
bation. The  idea  of  virtue  as  an  attribute  of  character 
engenders  admiration  ;  as  exempHfied  in  individuals,  good 
will,  esteem,  friendship,  or  even  love  for  them  and  emula- 
tion of  their  excellence ;  as  contrasted  with  vice,  abhor- 
rence of  the  vice  itself  and  aversion  or  contempt  toward 
those  in  whose  character  depravity  is  manifested.  The 
idea  of  happiness  as  possible  begets  courage,  desire,  and 
hope;  as  unattainable,  despair;  as  already  possessed,  joy; 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  185 

as  derived  from  others,  gratitude ;  as  endangered,  fear ; 
as  denied  to  others,  pity;  as  prevented  or  destroyed  by 
others,  indignation.  These  are  the  universal  impulses  to 
which  all  men  are  subject.  These  are  the  weapons  of  the 
orator  to  which  no  human  heart  can  ever  be  invulnerable."^ 

The  course  of  successful  argumentation  is,  then : 
(i)  to  set  forth  our  proofs  in  such  a  way  that  they 
will  be  understood  and  accepted  as  true;  (2)  to  estab- 
lish these  proofs  in  connection  with  some  one  or 
more  of  the  emotions,  and  (3)  to  rouse  the  emotions 
to  such  a  degree  that  they  will  move  the  will.  Take 
for  an  illustration  the  advocate.  He  presents  his 
witnesses,  his  arguments,  his  evidence,  and  so  seeks 
to  convince  the  reason  of  the  jury  that  his  client  has 
the  truth  on  his  side.  But  that  is  not  all.  Before 
making  this  appeal,  he  prepares  the  jury  for  a  favor- 
able reception  of  his  proofs  by  a  tactful  appeal  to 
their  emotions.  He  tells  them  of  his  own  sincerity 
and  longing  for  justice,  and  so  rouses  the  instincts  of 
virtue  and  duty  to  give  him  attention  and  sympathy. 
As  he  proceeds  he  discourses  on  the  demeanor  of 
witnesses,  on  the  "  exemplary  conduct  of  his  client " 
and  the  malice  of  the  parties  of  the  other  side,  again 
touching  the  chords  of  virtue  in  his  hearers.  He  ap- 
peals to  their  instincts  of  happiness,  by  portraying 
the  misfortunes  of  his  client,  as  the  evidence  is  made 
to  tell  the  story.  In  his  peroration  he  summons 
them  to  the  performance  of  their  duty. 

In  handling  persuasion  we  have  always   to   con- 

1  Robinson,  "Forensic  Oratory,"  pp.  14-15. 


1 86  Argumentation  and  Debate 

sider :  (i)  what  emotions  to  appeal  to,  and  (2)  how  to 
make  the  appeal. 

(i)  In  deciding  what  emotions  are  best  appealed  to, 
there  are  to  be  considered :  first,  the  audience,  using 
the  word  to  embrace  both  hearers  and  readers,  and, 
second,  the  circumstances.  In  order  to  persuade,  a 
speaker  or  writer  must  identify  himself  with  his  audi- 
ence. If  they  are  mentally  his  inferiors,  he  must 
descend  to  their  level.  If  their  most  common  in- 
stincts are  different  from  those  natural  to  him,  he 
must  yield  to  their  spirit  and  make  their  feelings  his. 
The  debater  cannot  command  from  a  height ;  he  must 
descend  and  lead. 

Contrast,  for  example,  the  methods  of  persuasion 
in  the  two  following  selections :  the  first  is  an  intro- 
duction taken  from  a  speech  by  Edmund  Burke, 
showing  one  of  the  serious  defects  of  the  great  Eng- 
lish statesman  as  an  orator;  he  was  wholly  lacking 
in  tact  and  in  the  powers  of  handling  men.  On  one 
occasion,  in  addressing  the  House  of  Commons,  he 
said :  — 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  under  some  embarrassment  oc- 
casioned by  a  feeling  of  delicacy  toward  one-half  of  the 
house,  and  of  sovereign  contempt  for  the  other  half." 

The  second  selection  is  taken  from  the  speech  by 
Governor  Livingstone  of  New  Jersey  before  the 
legislature  of  New  Jersey  in  1777:  — 

"  Having,  already,  laid  before  the  assembly,  by  mes- 
sages, the  several  matters  that  have  occurred  to  me,  as 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  1 87 

more  particularly  demanding  their  attention,  during  the 
present  session,  it  may  seem  less  necessary  to  address 
you  in  the  more  ceremonious  form  of  a  speech.  But,  con- 
ceiving it  my  duty  to  the  state  to  deliver  my  sentiments 
on  the  present  situation  of  affairs,  and  the  eventful  con- 
test between  Great  Britain  and  America,  which  could  not, 
with  any  propriety,  be  conveyed  in  occasional  messages, 
you  will  excuse  my  giving  you  the  trouble  of  attending  for 
that  purpose."^ 

But  men  are  not  always  moved  by  the  same  appeals 
under  different  circumstances.  The  following  is  the 
eloquent  conclusion  of  one  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher's 
sermons  in  the  pulpit  of  the  Plymouth  Church, 
Brooklyn  :  — 

"  We  are  children  of  God  in  proportion  as  we  are  in 
sympathy  with  those  who  are  around  about  us,  and  in  pro- 
portion as  we  bear  with  each  other.  How  sacred  is  man, 
for  whom  Christ  died !  And  how  ruthlessly  do  we  treat 
him  I  Oh,  my  brother,  oh,  my  sister,  oh,  father  and 
mother,  you  are  of  me,  and  I  am  of  you !  We  have  the 
same  temptations.  We  are  walking  to  the  same  sounds. 
We  are  upon  the  same  journey,  out  of  darkness  toward 
light ;  out  of  bondage  toward  liberty ;  out  of  sin  tow- 
ard holiness ;  out  of  earth  toward  heaven ;  out  of  self 
toward  God.  Let  us  clasp  hands.  Let  us  cover  each 
other's  faults.  Let  us  pray  more  and  criticise  less.  Let 
us  love  more  and  hate  less.  Let  us  bear  more  and  smite 
less.  And  by  and  by,  when  we  stand  in  the  unthralled 
land,  in  pure  light,  made  as  the  angels  of  God,  we  will 
pity  ourselves  for  every  stone  that  we  threw,  but  we  shall 
not  be  sorry  for  any  tear  that  we  shed,  or  any  hour  of 

1  "  Eloquence  of  the  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  64.  Compiled  by 
E.  B.  Williston,  1827. 


1 88  Argumentation  and  Debate 

patient  endurance  that  we  experienced  for  another.  Not 
the  songs  that  you  sang,  not  the  verses  that  you  wrote, 
not  the  monuments  that  you  built,  not  the  money  that  you 
amassed,  but  what  you  did  for  one  of  Christ's  little  ones, 
in  that  hour  will  be  your  joy  and  your  glory  above  every- 
thing else. 

"  Brethren,  this  is  a  sermon  that  ought  to  have  an  appli- 
cation to-day,  on  your  way  home,  in  your  houses,  and  in 
your  business  to-morrow.  From  this  time  forth,  see  that 
you  are  better  men  yourselves,  and  see  that  your  better- 
ment is  turned  to  the  account  of  somebody  else.  And  con- 
sider yourselves  as  growing  in  grace  in  proportion  as  you 
grow  in  patience  and  helpfulness.  Consider  yourselves  as 
growing  in  piety  and  as  growing  toward  God  in  proportion 
as  you  grow  in  sympathy  for  men."^ 

With  this,  contrast  the  following  appeal  by  the 
same  speaker  to  a  hostile  public  meeting  in  Liver- 
pool, England.  Mr.  Beecher  had  already  made  sev- 
eral speeches  in  the  cities  in  England  in  behalf  of 
the  Northern  interests  in  the  Civil  War,  and  this  was 
his  greatest  effort.  Liverpool  was  the  recognized 
headquarters  of  the  Southern  sympathizers  in  Eng- 
land ;  so  that  the  audience  that  confronted  him  was 
largely  hostile,  and  he  was  compelled  to  fight  for  a 
hearing  in  the  face  of  hisses,  catcalls,  and  every  form 
of  indecent  interruption.     Mr,  Beecher  began  :  — 

"  For  more  than  twenty-five  years  I  have  been  made  per- 
fectly familiar  with  popular  assemblies  in  all  parts  of  my 
country  except  the  extreme  South.  There  has  not  for  the 
whole  of  that  time  been  a  single  day  of  my  life  when  it 

1"  Plymouth  Pulpit,"  Eighth  Series,  March-September,  1872,  p.  245. 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  189 

would  have  been  safe  for  me  to  go  south  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line  in  my  own  country,  and  all  for  one  reason : 
my  solemn,  earnest,  persistent  testimony  against  that  which 
I  consider  to  be  the  most  atrocious  thing  under  the  sun  — 
the  system  of  American  slavery  in  a  great  free  republic. 
[Cheers.]  I  have  passed  through  that  early  period  when 
right  of  free  speech  was  denied  to  me.  Again  and  again 
I  have  attempted  to  address  audiences  that,  for  no  other 
crime  than  that  of  free  speech,  visited  me  with  all  manner 
of  contumelious  epithets  ;  and  now  since  I  have  been  in 
England,  although  I  have  met  with  greater  kindness  and 
courtesy  on  the  part  of  most  than  I  deserved,  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  I  perceive  that  the  Southern  influence  prevails 
to  some  extent  in  England.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  It 
is  my  old  acquaintance ;  I  understand  it  perfectly  — 
[laughter] — and  I  have  always  held  it  to  be  an  unfailing 
truth  that  where  a  man  had  a  cause  that  would  bear  exami- 
nation he  was  perfectly  willing  to  have  it  spoken  about. 
[Applause.]  And  when  in  Manchester  I  saw  those  huge 
placards,  '  Who  is  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ? '  [laughter, 
cries  of  "Quite  right,"  and  applause],  and  when  in  Liver- 
pool I  was  told  that  there  were  those  blood-red  placards, 
purporting  to  say  what  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  said,  and 
calling  upon  Englishmen  to  suppress  free  speech,  I  tell 
you  what  I  thought.  I  thought  simply  this,  '  I  am  glad 
of  it.'  [Laughter.]  Why?  Because  if  they  had  felt  per- 
fectly secure,  that  you  are  the  minions  of  the  South  and 
the  slaves  of  slavery,  they  would  have  been  perfectly  still. 
[Applause  and  uproar.]  And,  therefore,  when  I  saw  so 
much  nervous  apprehension  that,  if  I  were  permitted  to 
speak — [hisses  and  applause]  —  when  I  found  they  were 
afraid  to  have  me  speak  —  [hisses,  laughter,  and  "  No, 
no!  "]  —  when  I  found  that  they  considered  my  speaking 
damaging  to   their   cause  —  [applause]  —  when   I   found 


190  Argumentation  and  Debate 

that  they  appealed  from  facts  and  reasonings  to  mob  law  — 
[applause  and  uproar]  —  I  said,  no  man  need  tell  me  what 
the  heart  and  secret  counsel  of  these  men  are.  They 
tremble  and  are  afraid.  [Applause,  laughter,  hisses,  "  No, 
no!  "  and  a  voice,  "New  York  mob."]  Now,  personally, 
it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  to  me  whether  I 
speak  here  to-night  or  not.  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  But 
one  thing  is  very  certain,  if  you  do  permit  me  to  speak  here 
to-night,  you  will  hear  very  plain  talking.  [Applause  and 
hisses.]  You  will  not  find  a  man  —  [interruption]  —  you 
will  not  find  me  to  be  a  man  that  dared  to  sp^ak  about 
Great  Britain  three  thousand  miles  off,  and  then  is  afraid 
to  speak  to  Great  Britain  when  he  stands  on  her  shores. 
[Immense  applause  and  hisses.]  And  if  I  do  not  mistake 
the  tone  and  temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had  rather  have 
a  man  who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way  —  [applause 
from  all  parts  of  the  hall]  —  than  a  sneak  that  agrees  with 
them  in  an  unmanly  way.  [Applause  and  "  Bravo !  "] 
Now,  if  I  can  carry  you  with  me  by  sound  convictions,  I 
shall  be  immensely  glad  [applause]  ;  but  if  I  cannot  carry 
you  with  me  by  facts  and  sound  arguments,  I  do  not  wish 
you  to  go  with  me  at  all ;  and  all  that  I  ask  is  simply  Fair 
Play.  [Applause,  and  a  voice,  "  You  shall  have  it,  too."] 
"  Those  of  you  who  are  kind  enough  to  wish  to  favor  my 
speaking,  —  and  you  will  observe  that  my  voice  is  slightly 
husky  from  having  spoken  almost  every  night  in  succes- 
sion for  some  time  past,  —  those  who  wish  to  hear  me 
will  do  me  the  kindness  simply  to  sit  still ;  and  I  and 
my  friends  the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the  noise. 
[Laughter.]  "  ^ 

It  hardly  seems  possible  that  these  two  speeches 
were  from  the  same  lips.     They  are  both  strong  emo- 

1  "Patriotic  Addresses,"  Beecher,  p.  516. 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  191 

tional  appeals,  and  the  power  of  each  depends,  in  no 
small  degree,  upon  the  fitness  for  the  time  and  place. 
In  the  case  of  the  sermon,  Mr.  Beecher  spoke  to  an 
audience  gathered  on  a  quiet  Sabbath  day,  in  a  con- 
secrated edifice,  in  whose  "  dim  religious  light "  were 
felt  all  the  sacred  influences  of  architecture  and  of 
music.  The  minds  of  his  hearers  were  open  to  high 
thoughts  and  ready  to  meet  in  close  communion  of 
sympathy  and  feeling  with  the  orator.  So  he  might 
well  touch  the  chords  of  mutual  love  and  of  aspira- 
tion. In  Liverpool,  before  a  strange  audience  in  a 
strange  hall,  his  coming  heralded  by  scurrilous  pla- 
cards and  threats  against  his  life,  the  orator  was  com- 
pelled to  fight  for  even  the  privilege  of  speech  itself. 
To  have  addressed  such  a  crowd  in  terms  of  "holi- 
ness" and  "temptation"  would  have  been  to  raise 
a  riot.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  pastor  of  the 
Plymouth  pulpit  had  appealed  to  his  congregation  for 
"  fair  play,"  he  would  have  been  charged  with  insanity. 
Beecher's  speech  in  Liverpool  also  affords  a  good 
illustration  of  the  need  of  knowing  the  character  and 
previous  opinions  of  an  audience.  His  audience  was 
largely  made  up  of  laboring  men.  They  were  strug- 
gling from  day  to  day  to  make  an  honest  living,  and 
their  standard  of  value  was  wages ;  they  commonly 
estimated  ideas  in  terms  of  pounds,  shillings,  and 
pence.  The  master  of  persuasion  knew  their  thoughts 
and  directed  his  appeal  accordingly.  He  founded  his 
reasoning  on  the  basis  of  thebenefits  to  English  indus- 
try and  wages,  from  the  freeing  of  the  Southern  slaves. 


192  Argmneiitation  and  Debate 

English  industry,  he  said,  needs  not  cotton,  but  con- 
sumers ;  slaves  are  not  consumers,  but  make  them  free, 
and  they  become  the  patrons  of  British  cotton  and 
linen,  machines  and  books.  Furthermore,  he  spoke 
in  terms  that  would  reach  and  stir  a  workingman. 

"It  is  a  necessity  of  every  manufacturing  and  commer- 
cial people  that  their  customers  should  be  very  wealthy 
and  intelligent.  Let  us  put  the  subject  before  you  in  the 
familiar  light  of  your  own  local  experience.  To  whom  do 
the  tradesmen  of  Liverpool  sell  the  most  goods  at  the 
highest  profit  ?  To  the  ignorant  and  poor,  or  to  the  edu- 
cated and  prosperous?  [A  voice,  "  To  the  'Southerners." 
Laughter.]  The  poor  man  buys  simply  for  his  body ;  he 
buys  food,  he  buys  clothing,  he  buys  fuel,  he  buys  lodging. 
His  rule  is  to  buy  the  least  and  the  cheapest  that  he  can ; 
he  brings  away  as  little  as  he  can ;  and  he  buys  for  the 
least  he  can.  .  .  . 

"  A  savage  is  a  man  of  one  story,  and  that  one  story  a 
cellar.  When  a  man  begins  to  be  civilized,  he  raises 
another  story.  When  you  christianize  and  civilize  the 
man,  you  put  story  upon  story,  for  you  develop  faculty  after 
faculty,  and  you  have  to  supply  every  story  with  your 
productions.  The  savage  is  a  man  one  story  deep,  the 
civilized  man  is  thirty  stories  deep.  [Applause.]  Now,  if 
you  go  to  a  lodging-house  where  there  are  three  or  four 
men,  your  sales  to  them  may,  no  doubt,  be  worth  some- 
thing ;  but  if  you  go  to  a  lodging-house  like  some  of  those 
which  I  saw  in  Edinburgh,  which  seem  to  contain  about 
twenty  stories  [''Oh,  oh!"  and  interruption],  every  story 
of  which  is  full,  and  all  who  occupy  buy  of  you  —  which 
is  the  better  customer,  the  man  who  is  drawn  out  or  the 
man  who  is  pinched  up  ?  "  ^ 

1 "  Patriotic  Addresses,"  Beecher,  p.  519. 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  193 

(2)  The  question  how  to  appeal  to  the  emotions  is 
more  serious.  The  first  requisite  is  a  knowledge  of 
human  nature.  We  have  seen  that  one  of  the  prime 
qualities  of  effectiveness  is  adaptation  to  the  audience. 
To  get  such  adaptation  a  speaker  or  writer  must  know 
the  peculiarities  of  the  men  he  addresses.  However, 
such  knowledge  alone  will  not  enable  him  to  persuade. 
If  he  does  not  understand  human  nature  in  general, 
he  is  powerless  to  reach  the  emotions  which  he  knows 
are  before  him.  He  must  know  how  men  in  general 
think  and  act ;  when  a  man  is  best  persuaded  by  si- 
lence and  when  he  needs  to  be  reassured ;  when  to 
wait  and  when  to  strike.  Such  knowledge  is  not 
gained  from  books  and  cannot  be  explained.  It 
comes  only  from  contact  with  men  and  close  study 
of  their  habits  of  mind.  The  master  of  persuasion  is 
never  a  recluse. 

Closely  akin  to  the  persuasive  powers  arising  from 
the  knowledge  of  human  nature,  are  the  influences 
that  come  from  the  personality  of  the  speaker  or 
writer.  The  influence  of  personality  is  felt  most 
strongly  in  oratory ;  but  personal  character  shows  it- 
self in  print  as  well,  and  wherever  it  goes  it  persuades, 
favorably  or  unfavorably.  Every  quality  of  mind  or 
heart  that  may  make  enemies  or  make  friends  is  a 
proper  part  of  persuasive  power. 

There  are  two  qualities  that  may  be  mentioned 
as  particularly  desirable  in  argumentative  persuasion. 
The  first  is  sincerity  or  earnestness.  No  man  will 
be  persuaded  by  any  one  who  he  thinks  is  trying  to 


194  Argtimentation  and  Debate 

deceive  him  or  play  with  his  convictions  for  personal 
ends.  A  suspicious  audience  is  the  hardest  kind  to 
handle,  and  undoubtedly  an  audience  does  not  require 
much  to  make  it  suspicious.  Sometimes  the  hearers 
have  occasion  to  suspect  that  a  speaker  is  positively 
dishonest  and  designing;  but  more  often  they  be- 
lieve simply  that  the  speaker  is  arguing  for  argu- 
ment's sake  or  "to  be  worthy  of  his  hire,"  and  that 
he  really  has  no  interest  or  confidence  in  his  cause. 
Such  suspicion  is  seriously  damaging  to  persuasive 
power.  Enthusiasm  in  an  audience  can  be  roused 
only  by  enthusiasm  in  the  speaker,  and  earnest  con- 
viction is  only  begotten  by  a  belief  in  the  earnestness 
of  him  who  persuades.  Consequently,  whatever  his 
real  motives,  no  great  orator,  no  effective  writer,  neg- 
lects to  be  sure  at  every  step  that  his  audience  have 
confidence  in  the  honesty  and  earnestness  of  his  en- 
deavors. Hence  it  is,  that  the  following  exordium  is 
an  example  of  one  of  the  most  common  methods  of 
introduction.  It  is  taken  from  the  speech  of  Sir 
James  Mcintosh  in  behalf  of  Jean  Peltier  before  the 
Court  of  the  King's  Bench,  February,  1803,  and  shows 
how  necessary  a  man,  of  even  so  great  eloquence, 
thought  it  to  be  that  his  audience  believe  in  his  sin- 
cerity. 

"  I  must  begin  with  observing  that,  though  I  know  my- 
self too  well  to  ascribe  to  anything  but  to  the  kindness  and 
good  nature  of  my  learned  friend,  the  attorney-general,  the 
unmerited  praises  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  bestow  on 
me,  yet,  I  will  venture  to  say,  he  has  done  me  no  more 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  195 

than  justice  in  supposing  that  in  this  place  and  on  this 
occasion,  where  I  exercise  the  functions  of  an  inferior 
minister  of  justice,  an  inferior  minister,  indeed,  but  a 
minister  of  justice  still,  I  am  incapable  of  lending  myself 
to  the  passions  of  any  cHent,  and  that  I  will  not  make 
the  proceedings  of  this  court  subservient  to  any  political 
purpose."^ 

Another  element  of  persuasion  is  a  quality  in  the 
speaker  or  writer  that  may  be  termed  modesty.  Mod- 
esty, in  this  connection,  does  not  mean  an  attitude 
of  subservience  or  self-suspicion.  Proper  modesty 
does  not  require  that  a  speaker  apologize  for  his 
poor  abilities,  his  "inadequacy  to  the  task  before 
him,"  etc.  There  is  such  a  thing  —  even  in 
public  discussion  —  as  false  modesty,  and  it  is  a 
detriment  to  him  who  plays  with  it.  Self-confidence 
and  manly  courage  are  perfectly  consistent  with 
every  attribute  of  real  modesty.  True  modesty 
requires  simply,  that  the  man  should  be  made 
secondary  to  the  subject.  If  it  be  an  arguer's  pur- 
pose to  display  his  own  abilities  and  dazzle  his 
audience,  conceit  is  no  hindrance;  but  if  it  be 
his  aim  to  win  his  case,  it  is  different.  If  he 
makes  it  evident  that  he  thinks  he  is  himself  more 
important  than  what  he  has  to  say,  the  men  whom 
he  is  addressing  will  readily  share  his  disrespect  for 
the  cause  he  represents,  and,  however  much  they 
may  envy  his  brilliancy,  they  will  be  likely  to  give 
their   allegiance   elsewhere.     Furthermore,  an   audi- 

1  Howell's  State  Trials,  Vol.  28,  p.  566. 


igS  A7'gHmentatio7t  and  Debate 

ence  has  a  natural  tendency  to  doubt  the  modesty 
of  a  speaker.  For  the  moment  he  is  on  a  plane  a 
little  above  his  auditors ;  he  stands  as  their  leader  in 
thought  and  action.  Now  an  audience  are  willing  to 
be  led,  but  they  object  to-  being  driven.  They  will 
accept  leadership,  but  they  will  rebel  against  dicta- 
tion, and  they  are  quick  to  notice  any  assumption  of 
superiority  or  command.  The  line  between  leader- 
ship and  dictation,  between  equality  and  assumed 
superiority,  is  the  dead-Hne  of  friendship  with  the 
audience,  and  a  speaker  who  crosses  the  line  has 
lost  much  of  the  power  of  persuasion.  This  is  the 
essence  of  the  art  of  persuasion ;  the  relation  of  the 
speaker  to  his  audience  and  of  the  writer  to  his  reader 
must  always  be  an  attitude  of  leadership. 

Assuming  that  the  arguer  knows  the  character  of 
his  audience,  has  learned  by  study  of  human  nature 
how  to  reach  the  emotions  he  sees  before  him,  and  is 
keeping  in  sympathy  with  the  men  he  is  seeking  to 
persuade,  it  still  remains  for  him  to  apply  his  own 
particular  subject  to  the  particular  audience.  In 
order  to  do  this,  he  needs  to  consider  carefully  what 
ideas  in  his  proof  will  most  forcibly  affect  the  emotions 
of  his  hearers  or  readers.  There  are  in  every  ques- 
tion certain  phases  of  it  that  have  a  particular  inter- 
est for  any  particular  audience.  The  workingmen 
of  Liverpool  in  1863  were  most  interested  in  the 
industrial  side  of  the  slavery  question,  and  Beecher 
showed  his  consummate  tact  in  choosing  this  as  the 
one  phase  to  be  treated  above  all  others  at  the  mass- 


General  Principles  of  Presentation  197 

meeting  in  Philharmonic  Hall  (see  p.  192).  It  would 
have  been  folly  to  have  discussed  the  question  from 
the  standpoint  of  American  patriotism.  On  the  other 
hand,  before  a  council  of  clergymen  in  the  United 
States,  it  would  have  been  the  immorality  of  "man 
owning  man "  that  would  have  been  the  theme  of 
persuasion. 

It  often  happens  that  speakers  and  writers  treat 
their  subjects  from  too  many  ppints  of  view.  They 
turn  the  question  over  and  examine  it  on  every  side, 
when  the  men  whom  they  address  are  moved  in  mind 
or  heart  by  only  one  aspect  of  it  all.  Intellect  may 
be  the  same  in  every  audience,  varying  only  in  the 
degree  of  its  keenness ;  but  the  emotional  interests 
of  audiences  differ  widely  in  their  very  nature.  In 
any  subject  there  are  only  certain  phases  that  can 
touch  these  varying  emotions,  and  it  is  a  fundamental 
duty  of  one  who  would  persuade,  to  consider  well 
what  these  interesting  phases  are.  Then  his  appeals 
will  be  well  directed  toward  the  vulnerable  points, 
and  his  blows  will  be  of  some  effect  on  the  will  of 
his  audience. 

The  work  of  persuasion  as  here  outlined  takes 
varied  forms  in  the  different  parts  of  the  presenta- 
tion. These  particular  forms  are  best  discussed  in 
the  following  chapters,  on  the  introduction,  the 
discussion,  and  the  conclusion. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  INTRODUCTION 

The  duty  of  the  introduction  is  to  prepare  the  way 
for  the  work  of  th^  discussion  proper.  This  duty 
of  the  introduction  is  twofold.  Both  the  intellect 
and  the  emotions  must  be  reached  in  the  discussion, 
and  so  both  must  be  made  ready  by  the  work  of  the 
introduction.  The  intellect  must  be  prepared,  so 
that  all  the  proofs  may  have  their  fullest  effect ;  the 
emotions,  in  order  that  the  speaker  or  writer  may, 
from  the  first,  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the 
forces  that  will  ultimately  sway  his  audience.  So 
the  introduction  must  contain  both  conviction  and 
persuasion. 

Conviction 

We  have  seen  that,  with  respect  to  conviction,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  introduction  to  give  all  the  informa- 
tion necessary  for  an  understanding  of  the  discus- 
sion ;  also  that  the  parts  usually  necessary  for  the 
accomplishment  of  this  purpose  are,  briefly:  (i)  a 
definition  of  terms;  (2)  an  explanation  of  the  question 
in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  up  to  (3)  the  issues,  and ' 
(4)  the  partition  or  statement  of  the  points  to  be 
proved  in  the  discussion. 

198 


The  Introduction  199 

I.    Definition. 

Definition  in  argumentation  serves  two  purposes. 
It  serves,  first,  to  enable  the  writer  himself,  in  the 
beginning  of  his  work  in  preparation,  to  find  out  the 
real  meaning  of  the  question.  Secondly,  it  serves  to 
make  the  meaning  of  the  question  clear  to  the  reader 
or  hearer.  In  the  execution  of  the  former  of  these 
two  purposes  the  definitions  do  not  need  to  be  ex- 
pressed at  all ;  it  is  sufficient  that  the  investigator 
find  and  understand  them  himself.  But  in  presenting 
his  proofs  to  others,  the  arguer  must  consider  the 
methods  he  will  need  to  use,  in  order  to  make  his 
definitions  effective  with  the  persons  he  is  seeking  to 
convince. 

To  present  a  definition  forcibly  is  not  always  easy. 
A  mere  dictionary  definition,  which  we  have  seen  to 
be  of  little  or  no  value  in  finding  out  the  meaning  of 
the  question,  is  of  even  less  value  in  the  work  of 
presentation.  If  a  person  does  not  understand  the 
meaning  of  a  word  or  phrase,  his  confusion  will  not 
usually  be  cleared  away  by  the  quotation  of  a  mere 
sentence  from  a  dictionary.  In  the  first  place,  such 
a  definition  is  nearly  always  too  short  and  too  com- 
pact to  be  grasped  in  its  full  meaning,  in  the  short 
time  given  for  the  statement  of  it.  Moreover,  it  will 
probably  not  be  convincing.  If  the  person  who  is 
being  argued  with  is  to .  be  made  to  accept  fully  the 
definition,  he  must  be  persuaded  of  its  reasonableness ; 
he  must  be  made  to  see  why  the  term  means  what  the 
disputant  says,  and  so  be  brought  to  accept  it  without 


200  Ar^timentatio7i  and  Debate 


'<b 


mental  reserve  or  qualification.  It  is  for  these  reasons 
that  we  find  all  the  best  argumentative  writers  and 
speakers  taxing  the  resources  of  their  ingenuity  for 
interesting,  clear,  and  forcible  methods  of  presenting 
their  definitions. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  most  common  and 
effective  ways  :  — 

(i)  Definitio7t  by  authority. 

The  argument  from  authority,  which  we  have 
already  considered  elsewhere,  may  be  used  with 
good  effect  in  the  explanation  of  definitions.  We 
have  seen  that  a  dictionary  statement  is  of  little 
value  ;  but  there  are  few  ways  of  defining  more 
persuasive  with  an  audience,  than  to  quote  to  them 
an  explanation  of  the  term,  as  given  by  some  recog- 
nized specialist  in  that  branch  of  human  affairs  with 
which  the  word  or  phrase  is  concerned.  The  quo- 
tation, however,  should  not  be  too  short  or  too  dog- 
matic in  form.  It  should  be  an  explanation  rather 
than  a  mere  sentence  statement.  Also,  care  should 
be  taken,  as  in  any  argument  from  authority,  that 
the  reliability  of  the  person  quoted  is  fully  recog- 
nized, so  that  the  definition  may  have  the  full  force 
of  expert  evidence.  In  using  this  method,  also,  it  is 
usually  desirable  to  explain  the  quotation,  either  before 
or  after  reading  it,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  it  is  under- 
stood and  accepted  by  the  persons  addressed.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  in  the  selection  that  follows,  the 
speaker,  after  citing  his  definition,  goes  on  at  con- 
siderable length  to  comment  on  the  reasonableness 


The  Introduction  20 1 

of  the  statements  of  his  authority,  and  to  show  the 
bearing  of  the  definition  on  the  question  before 
the  court.  The  illustration  is  from  the  speech  by 
Mr.  William  A.  Beach  before  a  military  commission 
in  Washington,  D.C.,  1865.  He  is  here  defining  the 
term  "  military  law  " :  — 

"  '  Military  law  may  be  defined  to  be  a  body  of  rules 
and  ordinances  prescribed  by  competent  authority  for  the 
government  of  the  military  state  considered  as  a  distinct 
community.  .  .  .  The  general  law  claims  supreme  and 
undisputed  jurisdiction  over  all.  The  military  law  puts 
forth  no  such  pretensions.  It  aims  solely  to.  enforce  on 
the  soldier  the  additional  duties  he  has  assumed.  It  con- 
stitutes tribunals  for  the  trial  of  breaches  of  military  duty 
only.  It  attempts  not  to  regulate  or  adjust  the  civil  rights 
of  those  who  fall  under  its  cognizance,  nor  does  it  affect  to 
redress  civil  injuries  or  private  wrongs,  unless  they  be,  in 
some  degree,  connected  with  the  safety  and  good  order  of 
the  military  state  as  having  a  tendency  to  disturb  its  peace 
and  quiet.  Civil  injuries  or  private  wrongs,  not  immediately 
related  to  the  rights  of  a  soldier  as  such,  are  left,  like  his 
civil  rights,  to  the  redress  of  the  general  or  common  law.'  .  .  . 

"  Your  Honors  perceive  how  completely  the  extract  justi- 
fies my  reasoning.  It  will  impress  Your  Honors  with  its 
obvious  propriety.  It  assigns  to  Courts  like  yourselves 
their  true  position.  It  enables  them  to  accomplish  their 
full  ofiice,  without  interference,  with  the  ordinary  tribunals 
of  the  country.  It  disturbs  none  of  the  relations  of  civil 
life.  It  assigns  to  you  exclusively  the  field  of  military  dis- 
cipline and  efficiency.  It  maintains  a  wise  harmony  be- 
tween the  necessity  which  called  you  into  existence  and 
the  functions  you  should  exercise."  ^ 

1 "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  459. 


202  Argumentation  and  Debate 

(2)  Etymological  derivation  of  the  tei^m. 

The  meaning  of  a  term  may  often  be  made  clear, 
by  tracing  the  etymological  derivation  of  the  word  or 
the  history  of  the  development  of  its  meaning.  This 
method  is,  perhaps,  not  so  common  as  many  others, 
for  ambiguity  in  a  word  does  not,  in  argumentation, 
usually  arise  from  any  confusion  of  its  common  mean- 
ings such  as  might  be  removed  by.  a  study  of  its  life 
history.  But  wherever  this  method  may  be  used  it  is 
always  persuasive,  because  such  an  explanation  is 
logical  and  clear. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  in  his  Sixteenth  Lecture  on 
Rhetoric  and  Oratory  at  Harvard  University  in  1807, 
thus  defined  the  word  **  passion  "  :  — 

"  There  is,  however,  a  more  restricted  sense  in  which 
the  term  '  passion  '  is  used,  and  of  which  the  precisest  idea 
will  be  formed  by  tracing  its  etymology.  In  this  sense 
it  is  equivalent  to  sufferance,  distress,  anguish.  In  this 
sense  it  has  emphatically  been  applied  to  the  last  suf- 
ferings of  the  Saviour ;  and  to  this  sense  it  must  be  con- 
fined when  we  are  inquiring  into  those  pathetic  powers 
of  oratory  which  awaken  the  sympathies  of  the  audience. 
These  very  words  themselves,  '  pathetic  '  and  '  sympathy,' 
are  both  derived  from  the  Greek  Tra^o?,  of  which  the  Latin 
passio  is  merely  a  translation.  And  the  meaning,  uni- 
versally annexed  to  them,  has  kept  closer  to  their  original 
derivation  than  the  Latin  term."  ^ 

Blackstone,  in  Chapter  XXVII  of  his  "  Commen- 
taries," defines  "  heirlooms  "  by  this  method  :  — 

1  J.  Q.  Adams's  Lectures,  Vol.  I,  pp.  380-381. 


The  Introduction  203 

"  Heirlooms  are  such  goods  and  personal  chattels  as, 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  chattels,  shall  go  by  special  custom 
to  the  heir  along  with  the  inheritance,  and  not  the  executor 
of  the  last  proprietor.  The  termination,  loom^  is  of  Saxon 
original,  in  which  language  it  signifies  a  limb  or  member ; 
so  that  an  heirloom  is  nothing  else  but  a  limb  or  member 
of  the  inheritance."  ^ 

(3)  Definition  from  context. 

The  meaning  of  a  term  often  depends  upon  the 
way  in  which  it  is  used  in  connection  with  certain 
other  words,  in  the  same  sentence  or  paragraph. 
Under  such  conditions,  the  best  way  to  define  the 
terms  is  to  explain  fully  how  they  are  connected  with 
one  another.  Such  an  explanation  is  sure  to  be 
forcible,  if  the  reasoning  is  sound,  for  it  shows  the 
person  addressed  just  why  the  term  means  what  is 
alleged.  An  excellent  illustration  of  this  method  was 
given  by  Daniel  Webster  in  his  speech  before  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders, 
1807.  Mr.  Webster  is  here  defining  the  word 
"  contracts  "  :  — 

"  The  most  conclusive  argument,  perhaps,  arises  from 
the  connection  in  which  the  clause  stands.  The  words  of 
the  prohibition,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  civil  rights,  or  rights 
of  property,  are,  that  '  no  State  shall  coin  money,  emit 
bills  of  credit,  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a 
tender  in  the  payment  of  debts,  or  pass  any  law  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts.'  .  ,  .  The  parts  of  the  prohi- 
bition are  connected  by  the  subject-matter,  and  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  construed  together.      Taking  the  words 

1  Chase's  Blackstone,  p.  536. 


204  Argumentation  and  Debate 

thus  together,  according  to  their  natural  connection,  how 
is  it  possible  to  give  a  more  limited  construction  to  the 
term  '  contracts,'  in  the  last  branch  of  the  sentence,  than 
to  the  word  '  debts,'  in  that  immediately  preceding  ?  Can 
a  State  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a  tender  in 
payment  of  future  debts  ?  This  nobody  pretends.  But 
what  ground  is  there  for  a  distinction?  No  State  shall 
make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  a  tender  in  the  payment 
of  debts,  either  existing  or  future,  but  that  contracts  spoken 
of  are  subsisting  contracts  only.  Such  a  distinction  seems 
to  us  wholly  arbitrary."^ 

(4)   Definition  by  analogy. 

It  is  sometimes  effective  to  show  an  analogy  be- 
tween the  terms  to  be  defined  and  some  other  term 
whose  meaning  is  better  known.  By  comparing  the 
ambiguous  phrase  with  some  standards,  with  which 
the  audience  are  well  acquainted  from  their  everyday 
experience,  the  ambiguity  is  removed.  Mr.  Seward, 
in  his  defence  of  William  Freeman  before  the  Cayuga 
Oyer  and  Terminer,  Auburn,  N.Y.,  1846,  defined  "in- 
sanity "  by  the  method  of  analogy  as  follows  :  - — 

"  Although  my  definition  would  not  perhaps  be  strictly 
accurate,  I  should  pronounce  insanity  to  be  a  derangement 
of  the  mind,  character,  and  conduct  resulting  from  bodily 
disease.  I  take  this  word  '  derangement,'  because  it  is  one 
in  common  everyday  use.  We  all  understand  what  is 
meant  when  it  is  said  that  anything  is  ranged  or  arranged. 
The  houses  on  a  street  are  ranged,  if  built  upon  a  straight 
line.  The  fences  on  your  farms  are  ranged.  A  tower,  if 
justly  built,  is  ranged ;  that  is,  it  is  ranged  by  the  plummet. 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  38.  Little,  Brown  and 
Co.,  Boston,  1 85 1. 


The  Introduction  205 

It  rises  in  a  perpendicular  range  from  the  earth.  A  file  of 
men  marching  in  a  straight  line  are  in  range.  '  Range 
yourselves,  men,'  though  not  exactly  artistical,  is  n^t  an 
uncommon  word  of  command.  Now  what  do  we  mean 
when  we  use  the  word  '  ^<?ranged  '  ?  Manifestly  that  a 
thing  is  not  ranged,  is  riot  arranged,  is  out  of  range.  If 
the  houses  on  the  street  be  built  irregularly,  they  are  de- 
ranged. If  the  fences  be  inclined  to  the  right  or  left,  they 
are  deranged.  If  there  be  an  unequal  pressure  on  either 
side,  the  tower  will  lean,  that  is,  it  will  be  deranged.  So 
if  a  man  be  insane.  There  was  a  regular  line  which  he 
was  pursuing,  not  the  same  line  which  you  or  I  follow,  for 
all  men  pursue  different  lines,  and  every  sane  man  has  his 
own  peculiar  path.  All  these  paths  are  straight,  and  all 
are  ranged,  though  all  divergent.  ...  If  the  fond  mother 
becomes  the  murderer  of  her  offspring,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  she  is  deranged.  If  the  pious  man,  whose  steps  were 
firm  and  whose  pathway  led  straight  to  Heaven,  sinks  with- 
out temptation  into  criminal  debasement,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  he  is  deranged.  But  in  cases  where  no  natural  in- 
stinct or  elevated  principle  throws  its  light  upon  our 
research,  it  is  often  the  most  difficult  and  delicate  of  all 
human  investigations  to  determine  when  a  person  is 
deranged. 

"  We  have  two  tests.  First,  to  compare  the  individual 
after  the  supposed  derangement  with  himself  as  he  was 
before.  Second,  to  compare  his  course  with  those  ordinary 
lines  of  human  life  which  we  expect  sane  persons  of  equal 
intelligence  and  similarly  situated  to  pursue."^ 

(5)   Defiftition  by  illustration. 

One  of  the  most  common  ways  of  explaining  a 
term  is  to  give  illustrations  of  the  interpretation  put 

1  Works  of  William  H.  Seward,  Vol.  I,  p.  425. 


2o6  Argumentatioti  and  Debate 

upon  it.  The  greatest  virtue  of  such  a  method  lies 
in  its  vividness.  A  person  will  commonly  remember 
a  concrete  example  long  after  he  has  forgotten  the 
statement  of  a  principle. 

William  Pinckney,  in  his  defence  of  John  Hodges 
before  the  Circuit  Court  of  Maryland,  at  the  opening 
of  his  speech  gave  an  extended  definition  of  "trea- 
son." The  following  is  an  excerpt  from  the  first 
part  of  his  explanation  :  — 

"It  may  be  affirmed  as  an  universal  proposition  that 
criminal  intention  is  the  essence  of  every  species  of 
crime.  .  .  . 

"  Take  the  case  of  a  man  who,  in  time  of  war,  is  charged 
with  the  defence  of  an  important  fortress  or  castle,  which 
he  surrenders  to  an  incompetent  force.  What  more  effect- 
ual means  could  he  have  adopted  to  aid  the  enemy  than 
the  delivery  of  this  fortress  ?  The  books  will  tell  you 
that  if  he  was  bribed  to  this  desertion  of  his  duty,  if  he 
did  it  with  a  view  to  benefit  the  enemy,  he  is  guilty  of 
treason.  But  if  pusillanimity  was  the  cause,  or  if  it  arose 
from  a  false  calculation  of  his  own  means,  or  the  force  of 
the  enemy,  he  is  not  a  traitor.  You  may  banish  him  with 
ignominy  from  the  ranks  which  he  has  disgraced,  or  try 
him  by  martial  law  as  a  coward  or  a  fool ;  but  he  has  com- 
mitted no  treason. 

"  Suppose  a  powerful  force  to  invade  the  country,  to 
which  resistance  is  hopeless.  They  levy  contributions, 
they  do  not  proclaim  that  they  will  hang  me  if  I  neglect 
to  comply  with  this  order,  but  they  threaten  plunder  and 
desolation.  I  know  they  have  the  power  to  execute  that 
threat,  and  I  comply  accordingly.  Now  the  paying  of 
money  or  the  furnishing  of  provisions  is  an  assistance ;  it 
is  '  giving  aid  and  comfort '  much  more  effectually  than 


The  Introduction  207 

the  delivery  of  a  few  prisoners  or  a  deserter.  Yet  no  man 
will  call  this  treason,  because  there  is  no  evidence  of  hos- 
tility to  the  interests  of  the  country.  The  authorities  say 
it  is  not  treason."^ 

(6)   Definition  by  exclusion. 

The  meaning  of  a  term  is  often  ambiguous  because 
it  is  commonly  understood  to  include  more  than  it 
really  ought  to  include.  Various  attributes,  closely 
connected  with  the  attributes  properly  implied  in 
the  term,  may  easily  become  confused  with  the  term 
itself.  The  confusion  may  arise  from  the  misrepre- 
sentation of  an  opponent,  or  —  the  common  difficulty 
—  from  a  careless  confusion  of  ideas.  In  either 
case,  the  term  is  most  satisfactorily  defined  by 
drawing  the  line  of  distinction  between  the  essential 
and  the  unessential  attributes,  and  by  excluding  the 
ideas  that  are  extraneous,  thus  leaving  the  term  to 
include  only  its  natural  and  proper  intent. 

An  excellent  example  is  found  in  the  speech  by 
James  T.  Brady  in  defence  of  the  Savannah  priva- 
teers, before  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States. 
Mr.  Brady  is  here  defining  the  term  "piracy"  :  — 

"  What  are  the  circumstances,  what  are  the  acts,  that, 
in  view  of  the  law,  amount  to  piracy?  You  will  under- 
stand me  that,  for  the  present,  I  entirely  exclude  from  your 
consideration  any  of  the  particular  circumstances  which 
are  supposed  to  give  to  the  actual  crime  perpetrated  a 
public  character,  lifting  it  out  of  the  penal  law  that  you 
administer,  and  out  of  the  regions  of  private  crime,  into  a 
field  of  quite  different  considerations.  They  are,  undoubt- 
1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  38. 


208  Argumentation  and  Debate 

edly,  that  the  act  done  shall  be  with  intent  of  depriving 
the  person  who  is  in  possession  of  property,  as  its  owner, 
or  as  the  representative  of  that  owner,  of  that  property.  .  .  . 
There  must  be  actual  violence,  or  the  presence  or  exhibi- 
tion of  power  and  intent  to  use  violence,  which  produces 
the  surrender  and  delivery  of  the  property.  Such  are  the 
ingredients  of  robbery  and  piracy. .  And,  gentlemen,  these 
two  ingredients  are  all ;  and  you  must  rob  one  or  the  other 
of  them  of  this,  their  poison,  or  the  crime  is  completely 
proved,  when  the  fact  of  the  spoliation,  with  these  ingre- 
dients, shall  have  been  proved.  The  use  that  the  robber 
or  the  pirate  intends  to  make  of  retaliation,  by  way  of 
injury,  by  way  of  provocation,  by  way  of  any  other  occasion 
or  motive  that  seems  justifiable  to  his  own  conscience  to 
any  form  whatever  of  the  higher  law,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  completeness  of  the  crime."  ^ 

(7)   Definition  by  analysis. 

Any  definition,  by  whatever  method,  before  it  can 
be  presented,  requires  that  the  term  be  analyzed  and 
the  attributes  essential  to  its  meaning  determined 
upon.  The  name  "  analysis,"  as  denoting  one  of  the 
modes  of  presenting  a  definition,  does  not  mean  that 
any  more  careful  preliminary  analysis  of  the  terms 
by  the  writer  or  speaker  is  required  than  is  neces- 
sary in  any  other  case.  It  means  only  that  a 
definition  is  often  best  presented  by  directly  explain- 
ing to  the  audience  what  these  essential  attributes  are, 
as  they  have  been  found  by  analysis.  The  method 
here  called  by  the  name  "  analysis "  consists,  then, 
in  explaining  the  attributes  that  are  properly  implied 

1  "  Great  Speegljes  by  Grejit  Lawyers,"  p.  381. 


The  Introduction  209 

in  the  term.     For  example,  Mr.  Beach,  in   defence 
of  Samuel  North,  defined  **  crime  "  as  follows  :  — 

"  It  will  be  conceded  that  all  crime,  punishable  by 
human  authority,  consists  in  the  violation  of  some  rule 
of  conduct  declared  and  published  by  some  competent 
source.  The  principle  is  fundamental.  It  underlies  the 
administration  of  criminal  justice  by  all  tribunals,  whether 
military  or  civil.  To  constitute  offence  there  must  be  law 
existing  and  law  violated ;  and  the  law  which  declares  it 
must  be  proclaimed  and  public.  If  it  exist  in  the  form  of 
positive  enactment,  it  must  be  published.  If  it  be  custom- 
ary law,  it  must  be  general,  uniform,  acknowledged.  The 
citizen  cannot  be  entrapped  into  crime.  He  must  be 
notified  of  the  demands  of  society  in  all  the  departments 
of  its  action,  whether  of  peace  or  war,  before  obedience 
can  be  exacted,  and  disobedience  punished.  In  a  gov- 
ernment of  laws  those  acts  only  are  criminal  which  the  law 
condemns  ;  and  publicity  is  one  of  its  material  requisites. 
The  idea  of  secret  statutes,  withheld  from  the  subject  whose 
conduct  they  are  to  regulate,  is  hostile  to  every  principle 
of  just  government,  and  excites  the  sternest  indignation."^ 

There  are,  of  course,  many  other  ways  in  which 
a  definition  may  be  presented ;  the  foregoing  are 
simply  examples  of  some  of  the  most  desirable 
methods.  The  choice  of  method  depends  entirely 
upon  the  circumstances,  —  on  the  intelligence  of 
the  audience,  the  nature  of  the  question,  and  the 
nature  of  the  term  itself. 

II.  Explanation  of  the  question,  the  issues,  and  the 
partition. 

In  considering  the  presentation  of  the  remaining 

1  Idem,  p.  453. 
p 


210  Argumentation  and  Debate 

parts  of  the  introduction,  viz.,  the  explanation  of  the 
question,  the  issues,  and  the  partition,  the  three  parts 
are  best  treated  together.  In  any  introduction  the 
three  must  be  very  closely  related :  the  explanation 
of  the  question  must  make  the  problem  clear  in  such 
a  way  as  to  lead  up  to  the  issues,  and  make  them 
seem  the  only  natural  outgrowth  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case;  the  partition,  in  like  manner, 
must  be  made  to  seem  the  natural  outgrowth  from 
the  issues.  The  purpose  of  the  partition  is,  to  make 
the  persons  to  be  convinced  understand  just  how  the 
proofs  of  the  disputant  meet  the  issues  of  the 
case,  and  estabhsh  his  side  of  them.  Consequently, 
the  value  of  the  partition  depends  largely  upon  its 
close  and  evident  relation  to  the  statement  of  the 
issues ;  sometimes  the  points  of  the  issues  are 
identical  with  the  points  of  the  partition.  An  excel- 
lent illustration  of  the  clear  and  forcible  presentation 
of  these  three  parts  of  the  introduction  is  found  in 
the  speech  of  David  Dudley  Field  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States  vs.  Cruikshank,  2  Otto.  In  this  case 
Mr.  Field's  clients  were  indicted  for  acts  declared 
to  be  criminal  by  the  so-called  Enforcement  Act, 
passed  by  Congress  in  1870.  He  is  here  trying  to 
prove  that  this  Enforcement  Act  is  unconstitutional. 
He  said :  — 

"  Let  us  reduce  and  formulate  the  question,  if  we  can, 
so  as  to  separate  the  incidental  from  the  essential,  in 
order  that  our  attention  may  be  withdrawn  from  all  other 
considerations  than  that  of  the  one  fundamental  and  per- 


The  Introduction  21 1 

manent  theory,  upon  which  this  legislation  must  stand,  if 
it  stand  at  all." 

He  then  quoted  and  briefly  explained  the  thirteenth, 
fourteenth,  and  fifteenth  amendments  to  the  Consti- 
tution.    Continuing,  he  said  :  — 

"  Professing  to  act  under  the  authority  of  these  amend- 
ments, Congress  has  passed  five  acts,  four  only  of  which 
were  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  indictment  now  under 
consideration :  one  called  the  Civil  Rights  Act,  passed 
April  9,  1866  ;  the  second  called  the  Enforcement  Act, 
passed  May  31,  1870;  the  third,  amending  this,  passed 
February  28,  187 1  ;  and  a  fourth  act,  passed  April  20, 
1871." 

He  then  quoted  the  terms  of  these  acts  and  explained 
their  provisions.     Continuing  :  — 

"  By  authority  of  this  legislation  ninety-seven  persons 
were  indicted  together  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  Louisiana,  and  three  of  them, 
the  present  defendants,  were  found  guilty  upon  the  first 
sixteen  counts.  The  indictment  was  found  under  the  6th 
and  7th  sections  of  the  Enforcement  Act,  sixteen  counts 
being  for  simple  conspiracy  under  the  6th  section,  and  the 
other  sixteen  being  for  conspiracy,  with  overt  acts  resulting 
in  murder." 

He  then  explained  the  sixteen  counts  on  v^hich  his 
clients  had  been  indicted.     Continuing  :  — 

"  This  indictment,  or  that  portion  of  it  upon  which 
these  defendants  have  been  convicted,  is  supposed  to  be 
justified  by  the  6th  section  of  the  Enforcement  Act,  and 
that  section  is  said  to  rest  upon  the  late  amendments.  In 
considering  the  question,  whether  it  is  or  is  not  supported 


2li  Argume7itation  and  Debate 

by  them,  I  assume,  what  cannot  be  disputed,  that  before 
the  late  amendments  this  section,  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  other  sections,  would  have  been,  beyond  the 
competency  of  Congress.  The  point  of  contention,  there- 
fore, is  whether  the  amendments  have  conferred  the 
power." 

This  last  contains  the  statement  of  the  issue  of  the 
case.  It  is  to  be  observed  how  carefully,  step  by 
step,  Mr.  Field  leads  up  to  this  statement,  so  that  its 
accuracy  is  clearly  and  fully  understood  by  the  court. 
It  only  remains  for  him  to  complete  his  introduction 
by  the  statement  of  the  partition.  After  a  v^ord  of 
explanation,  connecting  the  issue  with  the  points  of 
the  partition,  he  finished  as  follows  :  — 

"  My  argument,  therefore,  will  consist  of  an  endeavor 
to  establish  the  following  two  propositions  :  — 

"I.  The  natural  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the 
new  amendments  does  not  justify  the  present  legislation. 

"  II.  If  the  natural  interpretation  did  justify  it,  yet,  as 
the  language  is  susceptible  of  a  different  one,  the  latter 
must  be  preferred  as  that  alone  in  which  it  was  understood 
by  the  people." 

In  the  introduction  given  above,  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  made  it  necessary  to  have  the  explanation 
of  the  question  long  and  detailed,  and  —  as  is  com- 
mon in  cases  at  law  —  the  explanation  took  the  form 
of  a  narration  of  events.  Also  the  nature  of  the  case 
made  it  possible  to  reduce  the  question  to  a  single 
issue.  This  is  not  always  possible  or  desirable. 
More  often  —  as  in  the  brief  on  the  contract  labor 
question  —  the  issue's  are  two  or   three  in  number. 


The  Introduction  213 

An  illustration  of  an  argument  where  there  were  two 
issues  is  found  in  Webster's  speech  in  the  case  of 
Gibbons  vs.  Ogden.  The  state  of  New  York  had 
passed  a  law  giving  to  Robert  Fulton  and  others  ex- 
clusive rights  of  navigation  "  by  fire  or  steam " 
within  the  waters  of  the  state.  Mr.  Webster  was 
here  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  law  was  uncon- 
stitutional. He  began  by  citing  the  terms  of  the  acts 
in  question  and  explaining  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  controversy  before  the  court.  He  then  stated 
the  issues  as  follows :  — 

"  On  these  pleadings  the  substantial  question  is  raised, 
Are  these  laws  such  as  the  legislature  of  New  York  has  a 
right  to  pass  ?  If  so,  do  they  secondly,  in  their  operation, 
interfere  with  any  right  enjoyed  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  are  they  therefore  void, 
as  far  as  such  interference  extends  ?  " 

He  then  proceeds  directly  to  the  partition :  — 

"  In  regard  to  these  acts,  I  shall  contend,  in  the  first 
place,  that  they  exceed  the  power  of  the  legislature  ;  and, 
secondly,  that,  if  they  could  be  considered  valid  for  any 
purpose,  they  are  void  still,  as  against  any  right  enjoyed 
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  with  which  they  come 
in  collision ;  and  that  in  this  case  they  are  found  interfer- 
ing with  such  rights."^ 

It  is  to  be  noticed,  in  this  case,  that  the  points  of 
the  partition  correspond  exactly  with  the  points  of 
the   issues.     This   is   frequently  desirable.     It  is  a 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  8.  Little,  Brown  and 
Co.,  Boston,  185 1. 


214  Arginneiitatioti  arid  Debate 

particularly  clear  method  because  it  makes  the  rela- 
tion between  the  issues  and  the  partition  so  evident. 
But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  two  parts  are  not 
identical.  The  issues  are  merely  a  statement  of  the 
points  on  which  the  controversy  must  turn,  and  so 
are  unprejudiced  in  nature ;  the  partition,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  the  statement  of  the  points  the  dispu- 
tant means  to  establish  in  proving  his  side  of  the 
case.     They  are  closely  related,  but  not  the  same. 

In  the  example  given  above,  the  issues  are  prcr 
sented  in  the  form  of  a  bare  statement.  But  often 
this  is  not  sufficient.  Usually,  the  critical  point  or 
points  need  to  be  emphasized,  and  so  presented  rhe- 
torically, that  they  will  be  impressed  on  the  attention 
and  the  memory  of  the  audience.  For  example,  Mr. 
Jeremiah  Black,  in  his  argument  in  the  case  of  ex 
parte  Milligan,  4  Wall.  2,  presented  the  issues  of  the 
case  briefly  and  forcibly  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  case  before  you  presents  but  a  single  point,  and 
that  an  exceedingly  plain  one.  .  .  .  Keeping  the  charac- 
ter of  the  charges  in  mind,  let  us  come  at  once  to  the 
simple  question  upon  which  the  court  below  divided  in 
opinion:  Had  the  commissioners  jurisdiction  —  were  they 
invested  with  legal  authority  to  try  the  relaters  and  put 
them  to  death  for  the  offence  of  which  they  were  accused  ? 
We  answer,  no  ;  and,  therefore,  the  whole  proceeding  from 
beginning  to  end  was  utterly  null  and  void.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  those  who  oppose  us 
to  assert,  as  they  do  assert,  that  the  commissioners  had 
complete  legal  jurisdiction  both  of  the  subject-matter  and 
of  the  parties,  so  that  their  judgment  upon  the  law  and 


The  Introduction  215 

the  facts  is  absolutely  conclusive  and  binding,  not  subject 
to  correction  nor  open  to  inquiry  in  any  court  whatever. 
Of  these  two  opposite  views,  you  must  adopt  one  or  the 
other ;  for  there  is  no  middle  ground  on  which  you  can 
possibly  stand." 

One  very  common  method  of  presenting  the  issues 
consists  in  excluding  irrelevant  or  mutually  admitted 
matter.  It  is  the  error  of  confusing  other  kindred 
questions  with  the  question  really  in  hand  that  most 
often  makes  necessary  a  careful  definition  of  the 
issues ;  and  this  confusion  may  very  effectively  be 
cleared  away  by  explaining  in  the  introduction  what 
these  kindred  questions  are,  and  just  why  they  ought 
to  be  excluded  from  consideration.  Burke,  in  his 
speech  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  Marriage 
Act,  1 78 1,  made  clear  the  issue  of  the  debate  by  ex- 
cluding irrelevant  matter.  The  bill  in  question  pro- 
vided that  the  power  of  marrying,  without  consent  of 
parents,  should  not  exist  till  twenty-one  years  of  age. 
Mr.  Burke,  in  his  introduction,  said :  — 

*'  The  question  is  not  now,  whether  the  law  ought  to 
acknowledge  and  protect  such  a  state  of  life  as  minority, 
nor  whether  the  continuance,  which  is  fixed  for  that  state, 
be  not  improperly  prolonged  in  the  law  of  England. 
Neither  of  these  in  general  is  questioned.  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  whether  matrimony  is  to  be  taken  out  of  the  gen- 
eral rule,  and  whether  the  minors  of  both  sexes,  without  the 
consent  of  their  parents,  ought  to  have  a  capacity  of  con- 
tracting the  matrimonial,  whilst  they  have  not  the  capacity 
of  contracting  any  other  engagement."^ 

2  Burke's  Speeches,  p.  402.     James  Duffy,  London,  1871. 


2i6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Persuasion 

The  function  of  conviction  in  the  introduction  is 
to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  audience  for  a  reception 
and  appreciation  of  the  proof  to  be  offered  later  in 
the  argument.  The  function  of  persuasion  is  analo- 
gous. The  emotions  of  an  audience  need  to  be  pre- 
pared no  less  than  their  intellect.  A  man's  emotions 
cannot  be  wildly  and  roughly  attacked  any  more  than 
his  reason;  if  the  audience  is  antagonistic  to  the 
speaker  or  out  of  harmony  with  him,  his  emotional 
appeals  will  be  unavailing.  Consequently,  before  a 
speaker  can  control  these  moving  impulses  of  his 
audience,  he  must  establish  with  them  close  relations 
of  fellow-feeling.  He  must  bring  them  into  close 
sympathy  with  himself  so  that  whatever  moves  him 
may  be  transmitted  freely  to  them.  Here,  in  the  in- 
troduction, the  speaker  often  first  touches  on  that 
emotion  which  he  wishes  most  to  affect  in  his  later 
efforts,  and  so  prepares  it  for  stronger  appeals  that 
are  to  come.  Persuasion  in  the  introduction  is  also  a 
very  valuable  help  in  preparing  for  the  work  of  con- 
viction in  the  discussion.  If  an  audience  is  inatten- 
tive or  hostile  to  a  speaker,  much  of  his  proof  may 
pass  by  without  effect ;  so,  in  order  to  make  his  audi- 
ence listen  and  do  justice  to  his  demonstrations  in 
the  discussion,  he  must  interest  them  in  his  cause, 
and  create  in  them  a  willingness  to  be  convinced. 
In  general,  then,  persuasion  in  the  introduction 
must  bring  the   thought  and   feeling   of   the   audi- 


The  Introduction  217 

ence    into   working   harmony   with   the   speaker   or 
writer. 

In  trying  to  win  favor  with  the  audience,  a  speaker 
may  make  an  appeal  in  his  own  behalf,  or  in  behalf 
of  his  subject.  A  plea  for  personal  sympathy  is 
dangerous  and  must  be  used  with  the  most  delicate 
tact.  It  must  always  be  the  dignified  appeal  of  a 
strong  man  to  his  equal ;  to  overdo  the  sentiment  will 
surely  beget  contempt.  A  plea  for  the  subject,  how- 
ever, may  be  made  somewhat  more  openly.  The 
lawyer  may  with  boldness  seek  pity  for  his  cHent; 
the  legislator,  enthusiasm  for  his  cause.  But  even 
such  an  introduction  requires  a  knowledge  of  human 
nature  and  a  careful  observation  of  the  changing 
moods  of  an  audience,  in  order  to  avoid  an  excess  of 
emotion.  An  excellent  example,  of  the  tactful  use  in 
combination  of  both  kinds  of  appeal,  is  found  in  the 
following  introduction  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Seward  in  his 
defence  of  William  Freeman.  His  client  in  this  case 
was  a  negro,  the  son  of  a  slave.  He  had  committed 
a  triple  murder,  and  public  sentiment  was  wrought 
to  a  high  pitch  of  indignation  against  him.  After 
the  murderer's  death,  an  examination  of  his  brain 
proved  him  to  have  been  insane ;  but,  at  the  time  of 
the  trial,  he  was  generally  believed  to  be  a  criminal  of 
the  most  debased  order,  and  Mr.  Seward  was  cen- 
sured for  undertaking  his  defence.  He  said,  in 
part :  — 

"  I  plead  not  for  a  murderer.  I  have  no  inducement, 
no  motive  to  do  so.     I  have  addressed  my  fellow-citizens 


2i8  Argumentation  a7id  Debate 

in  many  various  relations,  when  rewards  of  wealth  and 
fame  awaited  me.  I  have  been  cheered  on  other  occa- 
sions by  manifestations  of  popular  approbation  and  sym- 
pathy ;  and  where  there  was  no  such  encouragement,  I 
had  at  least  the  gratitude  of  him  whose  cause  I  defended. 
But  I  speak  now  in  the  hearing  of  a  people  who  have  pre- 
judged the  prisoner,  and  condemned  me  for  pleading  in 
his  behalf.  He  is  a  convict,  a  pauper,  a  negro,  without 
intellect,  sense,  or  emotion.  My  child,  with  an  affection- 
ate smile,  disarms  my  careworn  face  of  its  frown  whenever 
I  cross  my  threshold.  The  beggar  in  the  street  obliges 
me  to  give,  because  he  says  '  God  bless  you '  as  I  pass. 
My  dog  caresses  me  with  fondness  if  I  will  but  smile  on 
him.  My  horse  recognizes  me  when  I  fill'  his  manger. 
But  what  reward,  what  gratitude,  what  sympathy  and 
affection  can  I  expect  here?  There  the  prisoner  sits. 
Look  at  him.  Look  at  the  assemblage  around  you. 
Listen  to  their  ill-suppressed  censures  and  their  excited 
fears,  and  tell  me  where,  among  my  neighbors  or  my  fel- 
low-men, where,  even  in  his  heart,  I  can  expect  to  find  the 
sentiment,  the  thought,  not  to  say  of  reward  or  of  acknowl- 
edgment, but  even  of  recognition.  I  sat  here  two  weeks 
during  the  preliminary  trial.  I  stood  here,  between  the 
'  prisoner  and  the  jury,  nine  hours,  and  pleaded  for  the 
wretch  that  he  was  insane  and  did  not  even  know  he  was 
on  trial ;  and,  when  all  was  done,  the  jury  thought,  at  least 
eleven  of  them  thought,  that  I  had  been  deceiving  them, 
or  was  self-deceived.  They  read  signs  of  intelligence  in 
his  idiotic  smile,  and  of  cunning  and  malice  in  his  stolid 
insensibility.  They  rendered  a  verdict  that  he  was  sane 
enough  to  be  tried  —  a  contemptible  compromise  verdict 
in  a  capital  case  ;  and  then  they  looked  on,  with  what  emo- 
tions God  and  they  only  know,  upon  his  arraignment.  The 
district-attorney,  speaking  in  his  adder  ear,  bade  him  rise, 


The  Introduction  2ig' 

and,  reading  to  him  one  indictment,  asked  him  whether 
he  wanted  a  trial,  and  the  poor  fool  answered  no.  Have 
you  counsel?  No.  And  they  went  through  the  same 
mockery,  the  prisoner  giving  the  same  answers,  until  a 
third  indictment  was  thundered  in  his  ears,  and  he  stood 
before  the  court  silent,  motionless,  and  bewildered.  Gen- 
tlemen, you  may  think  of  this  evidence  what  you  please, 
bring  in  what  verdict  you  can,  but  I  asseverate,  before 
Heaven  and  you,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
belief,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  does  not,  at  this  moment, 
know  why  it  is  that  my  shadow  falls  on  you  instead  of  his 


Often  there  is  no  more  effective  appeal  than  that 
of  honesty  and  earnestness.  Confidence,  on  the  part 
of  the  audience,  in  a  speaker's  motives  is  indispens- 
able for  success  in  either  convincing  or  persuading, 
and  the  existence  of  such  motives  may  well  be  em- 
phasized in  the  introduction.  Then,  too,  sympathy 
always  goes  out  quickly  and  strongly  to  a  man  who 
is  honest  in  his  motives,  and  always  creates  a  solid 
basis  of  confidence  and  understanding. 

Patrick  Henry's  introduction  in  his  famous  speech, 
before  the  Convention  of  Delegates,  is  a  model  of 
magnanimity  and  earnestness  :  — 

*'  No  man  thinks  more  highly  than  I  do  of  the  patriot- 
ism, as  well  as  abilities,  of  the  very  worthy  gentlemen  who 
have  just  addressed  the  House.  But  different  men  often 
see  the  same  subject  in  different  lights ;  and,  therefore,  I 
hope  that  it  will  not  be  thought  disrespectful  to  those^ 
gentlemen,  if,  entertaining  as  I  do  opinions  of  a  charac- 

1  Works  of  William  H.  Seward,  Vol.  I,  p.  413. 


220  Argumentation  and  Debatt 

ter  very  opposite  to  theirs,  I  shall  speak  forth  my  senti- 
ments freely  and  without  reserve.  This  is  no  time  for 
ceremony.  The  question  before  the  House  is  one  of  awful 
moment  to  this  country.  For  my  own  part,  I  consider  it 
as  nothing  less  than  a  question  of  freedom  or  slavery ;  and 
in  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  ought  to  be 
the  freedom  of  the  debate.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  we 
can  hope  to  arrive  at  truth,  and  fulfil  the  great  responsi- 
bility which  we  hold  to  God  and  our  country.  Should  I 
keep  back  my  opinions  at  such  a  time  through  fear  of  giv- 
ing offence,  I  should  consider  myself  as  guilty  of  treason 
toward  my  country  and  of  an  act  of  disloyalty  toward 
the  majesty  of  Heaven,  which  I  revere  above  all  earthly 
kings." 

It  sometimes  happens  that  the  speaker  or  v^riter  is 
a  stranger  to  those  whom  he  addresses.  Under  such 
circumstances  his  first  duty  is  to  create  some  bond  of 
fellow-feeling  with  his  audience.  Here  modesty  is 
clearly  one  indispensable  quality.  To  this  should  be 
added,  when  possible,  the  bonds  of  some  common 
interest  or  common  emotion ;  again,  an  appeal  may 
well  be  made  for  a  charitable  hearing  and  for  fair 
play.  Sergeant  Prentiss,  in  his  defence  of  Edward 
C.  Wilkinson,  felt  the  need  of  creating  such  a  union 
of  feeling  with  the  members  of  the  jury  he  rose  to 
address,  and  based  his  appeal  upon  the  sympathy  of 
common  emotional  instincts. 

"  I  came  before  you  an  utter  stranger,  and  yet  I  feel 
not  as  a  stranger  towards  you  ;  I  have  watched  during  the 
course  of  the  examination  the  various  emotions  which  the 
evidence  was  so  well  calculated  to  arouse  in  your  bosoms, 


The  Introduction  221 

both  as  men  and  as  Kentuckians ;  and  when  I  beheld  the 
flush  of  honorable  shame  upon  your  cheeks,  the  sparkle  of 
indignation  in  your  eyes,  or  the  curl  of  scorn  upon  your 
lips,  as  the  foul  conspiracy  was  developed,  I  felt  that  years 
could  not  make  us  better  acquainted.  I  saw  upon  your 
faces  the  mystic  sign  which  constitutes  the  bond  of  union 
among  honest  and  honorable  men,  and  I  knew  that  I  was 
about  to  address  those  whose  feelings  would  respond  to 
my  own.  I  rejoiced  that  my  clients  were,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  term,  to  be  tried  by  a  jury  of  their  peers. ''^  ^ 

Sometimes  the  audience  is  worse  than  a  stranger ; 
it  may  be  an  enemy.  To  handle  an  audience  that  is 
hostile  at  the  outset,  is  the  most  difficult  task  with 
which  an  arguer  is  ever  confronted.  It  calls  for  a 
rare  combination  of  courage  and  patience,  of  mod- 
esty and  self-confidence,  of  tact  and  determination. 
The  emotions  best  appealed  to  under  such  conditions 
are  commonly  those  of  honesty,  courtesy,  or  a  desire 
for  fair  play.  The  skill  needed  on  such  an  occasion  is 
well  illustrated  in  Beecher's  Liverpool  speech  already 
given  on  page  i88.  His  plea  for  a  hearing  then  con- 
sisted largely  in  a  demand  for  fair  play  —  a  plea  that 
Englishmen  take  pride  in  respecting.  Moreover, 
there  was  no  little  persuasive  power  in  the  display  of 
a  manly  courage  such  as  an  enemy  must  respect.  A 
similar  plea,  full  of  dignity,  courage,  and  firm  mod- 
esty, is  found  in  the  opening  words  of  William  Pinck- 
ney's  speech  in  the  Maryland  Assembly,  in  1788, 
in  behalf  of  a  petition  for  the  relief  of  oppressed 
slaves :  — 

^  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  2&. 


222  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  Before  I  proceed  to  deliver  my  sentiments  on  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  report  under  consideration,  I  must  en- 
treat the  members  of  this  House  to  hear  me  with  patience, 
and  not  to  condemn  what  I  may  happen  to  advance  in 
support  of  the  opinion  I  have  formed,  until  they  shall  have 
heard  me  out.  I  am  conscious,  sir,  that  upon  this  occa- 
sion, I  have  long-established  principles  to  combat  and 
deep-rooted  prejudices  to  defeat;  that  I  have  fears  and 
apprehensions  to  silence,  which  the  acts  of  former  legisla- 
tures have  sanctioned,  and  that  (what  is  equivalent  to  a 
host  of  difficulties)  the  popular  impressions  are  against 
me.  But  if  I  am  honored  with  the  same  indulgent  atten- 
tion which  the  House  has  been  pleased  to  afford  me,  on 
past  subjects  of  deliberation,  I  do  not  despair  of  surmount- 
ing all  these  obstacles,  in  the  common  cause  of  justice, 
humanity,  and  policy."  ^ 

If  prejudice  has  been  created  by  the  appeals  of  a 
preceding  speaker,  these  prejudices  must,  as  far  as 
possible,  be  mitigated  in  the  introduction,  for  such 
an  unfavorable  attitude  may  nullify  the  effect  of  all 
proof  or  persuasion,  as  long  as  the  vision  of  the  audi- 
ence is  thus  distorted.  At  such  a  time,  the  ''retort 
courteous,"  ridicule,  sarcasm,  or  even  invective  are 
good  weapons  of  defence.  Whatever  w^eapon  of 
reply  is  chosen,  there  is  one  precaution  that  must 
always  be  remembered  :  the  disputant  must  never 
permit  himself  to  lose  his  temper  in  the  smallest 
degree.  This  temptation  is  sure  to  arise  in  the  heat 
of  any  earnest  discussion  where  persuasion  plays  any 
great  part,  and  it  is  a  temptation  that  must  be  always^ 

1  "  Eloquence  of  the  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  92.  E.  and  H. 
Qark,  Middletown,  Conn.,  1827. 


The  Introduction  225 

repressed,  for  ill  temper  in  discussion  hurts  only  him 
who  uses  it. 

There  are  few  better  models  of  personal  retort  in 
the  history  of  oratory  than  can  be  found  in  Webster's 
famous  Reply  to  Hayne,  in  the  debate  on  the  Foote 
Resolution.  Another  illustration  of  the  great  sena- 
tor's power  in  personal  debate  is  found  in  his  reply  to 
Calhoun  on  the  22d  of  March,  1838.  Humor,  sar- 
casm, and  defiance  are  wielded  with  power,  yet  all  is 
courteous  and  firmly  dignified. 

"  Mr.  President  :  I  came  rather  late  to  the  Senate 
this  morning,  and,  happening  to  meet  a  friend  on  the 
Avenue,  I  was  admonished  to  hasten  my  steps,  as  '  the 
war  was  to  be  carried  into  Africa,'  and  I  was  expected  to 
be  annihilated.  I  lost  no  time  in  following  the  advice,  Sir, 
since  it  would  be  awkward  for  one  to  be  annihilated  with- 
out knowing  anything  about  it. 

"  Well,  Sir,  the  war  has  been  carried  into  Africa.  The 
honorable  member  has  made  an  expedition  into  regions  as 
remote  from  the  subject  of  this  debate  as  the  orb  of  Jupi- 
ter from  that  of  our  earth.  He  has  spoken  of  the  tariff,  of 
slavery,  and  of  the  late  war.  Of  all  this  I  do  not  com- 
plain. On  the  contrary,  if  it  be  his  pleasure  to  allude  to 
all  or  any  of  these  topics,  for  any  purpose  whatever,  I  am 
ready  at  all  times  to  hear  him. 

"Sir,  this  carrying  the  war  into  Africa,  which  has  be- 
come so  common  a  phrase  among  us,  is,  indeed,  imitating 
a  great  example ;  but  it  is  an  example  which  is  not  always 
followed  with  success.  In  the  first  place,  every  man, 
though  he  be  a  man  of  talent  and  genius,  is  not  a  Scipio; 
and  in  the  next  place,  as  I  recollect  this  part  of  Roman 
and  Carthaginian  history,  —  the  gentleman  may  be  more 
accurate,   but  as   I   recollect    it,   when    Scipio    resolved 


224  Argumentation  and  Debate 

upon  carrying  the  war  into  Africa,  Hannibal  was  not  at 
home.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  very  little  like  Hannibal,  but  I  am 
at  home ;  and  when  Scipio  Africanus  South  Carohniensis 
brings  the  war  into  my  territories,  I  shall  not  leave  their 
defence  to  Asdrubal,  nor  Syphax,  nor  anybody  else.  I 
meet  him  on  the  shore,  at  his  landing,  and  propose  but 
one  contest. 

"Concurritur;  horae 
Momento  cita  mors  venit,  aut  victoria  laeta."  ^ 

A  hostile  audience  is  less  common  than  an  inat- 
tentive one.  It  is  well-nigh  impossible  to  convince 
an  audience  whose  minds  are  wandering  away  from 
the  subject  or  who  are  carelessly  half-listening.  At 
the  very  beginning,  if  any  such  danger  is  present,  — 
and  it  is  unfortunately  a  common  danger,  —  the  atten- 
tion of  the  audience  must  be  roused  and  centred  on 
the  topic  of  the  hour.  For  this  reason,  probably  the 
most  common  of  all  forms  of  persuasive  introduction 
is  that  which  emphasizes  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion in  discussion.  There  are  many  ways  of  arousing 
interest  in  an  audience.  It  may  be  shown  that  the 
question  is  of  great  inherent  importance;  that  it  is 
of  a  peculiar  significance  because  of  its  relation  to 
current  events  and  conditions ;  that  it  is  one  of  the 
growing  problems  of  the  future ;  or,  perhaps,  that  it 
has  some  especially  close  bearing  on  the  interests  of 
the  particular  audience.  A  good  example  is  found 
in  the  introduction  of  Charles  James  Fox  to  one  of 
his  speeches  on  the  East  India  Bill :  — 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  IV,  p.  500.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1856. 


The  Introduction  225 

"  I  did  not  intend,  Sir,  to  have  said  anything  in  addition 
to  that  which  has  been  aheady  urged  so  ably  in  favor 
of  the  resolution  now  agitated.  In  my  own  opinion,  its 
propriety  and  necessity  are  completely  and  substantially 
established.  A  few  particulars,  suggested  in  the  course 
of  the  debate  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House, 
may  be  thought,  however,  to  merit  some  animadversion. 
And,  once  for  all,  let  no  man  complain  of  strong  language. 
Things  are  now  arrived  at  such  a  crisis  as  renders  it  im- 
possible to  speak  without  warmth.  Delicacy  and  reserve 
are  criminal  where  the  interests  of  Englishmen  are  at 
hazard.  ... 

"  This,  at  least,  has  made  such  an  impression  on  my  mind 
that  I  never  felt  so  much  anxiety ;  I  never  addressed  this 
House  under  such  a  pressure  of  impending  mischief;  I 
never  trembled  so  much  for  public  liberty  as  I  now  do. 
The  question  before  the  House  involves  the  rights  of  Par- 
liament in  all  their  consequences  and  extent.  These  rights 
are  the  basis  of  our  Constitution,  and  form  the  spirit  of 
whatever  discriminates  the  government  of  a  free  country. 
And  have  not  these  been  threatened  and  assaulted  ?  "  ^ 

1  "  The  World's  Orators  »  (England),  pp.  317-318.  G.  P.  Putnam's 
Sons,  New  York,  1900. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  DISCUSSION 

The  work  of  presenting  the  proof  of  the  discussion, 
is  largely  a  matter  of  applying  the  principles  of  com- 
position. If  the  proofs  have  been  well  invented  and 
arranged,  to  make  them  accomplish  their  purpose  only 
requires  the  use  of  words  that  will  convey  them  to  the 
minds  of  others.  So  that  the  first  requisite  for  force- 
ful presentation  is  a  working  knowledge  of  rhetoric 
in  general. 

But  immediately  the  question  arises  as  to  the  proper 
relation  of  the  finished  composition  to  the  brief.  How 
closely  shall  the  brief  be  followed  in  the  final  presen- 
tation ?  Shall  the  exact  words  of  the  brief  be  re- 
peated }  In  answering  these  questions  there  are  two 
extremes  that  are  generally  to  be  avoided.  On  the 
one  hand,  rhetorical  embellishment  or  rhetorical  care- 
lessness may  destroy  all  the  advantage  gained  by  a 
good  arrangement.  On  the  other  hand,  the  bare 
bones  of  the  outline  may  be  exposed  so  rudely  as  to 
be  offensive.  Of  these  two  faults  the  beginner  un- 
doubtedly tends  toward  the  latter ;  he  does  not  take 
pains  enough  to  make  his  dish  enticing  or  even  palat- 
able. The  speech  or  the  finished  composition  is  too 
often  a  mere  repetition  of  heads  and  subheads,  with 

226 


The  Discussion  227 

the  addition  of  a  few  conjunctions  and  a  trite  phrase 
here  and  there.  This  defect  is  far  more  pardonable 
than  that  of  the  beginner,  who  talks  at  random  and 
buries  what  little  he  has  to  say  in  the  confusion  of 
vague  and  formless  rhetoric ;  but  it  is,  nevertheless, 
a  defect. 

One  of  the  rhetorical  elements  most  commonly 
lacking,  in  the  presentation  of  proof  by  a  beginner,  is 
variety.  It  is  sometimes  assumed  that  less  variety 
in  presentation  is  desirable  in  argumentation  than  in 
most  of  the  other  forms  of  composition  or  oratory. 
It  is  said  that  in  a  story  or  in  a  demonstrative  oration, 
since  the  purpose  of  the  writer  or  speaker  is  to  please 
or  make  display,  variety  is  indispensable ;  but  that  in 
argumentation,  since  the  appeal  is  only  to  the  reason, 
variety  is  superfluous.  In  truth,  the  fact  that  argu- 
mentation (z>.  conviction  in  argumentation)  addresses 
only  the  reason,  instead  of  making  variety  superfluous, 
makes  it  the  more  necessary.  In  a  narrative  or  a 
lecture  there  is  variety  in  the  very  subject-matter  to 
give  it  interest ;  but  in  argument,  the  natural  cold- 
ness of  logic  needs  to  be  dressed  more  attractively  to 
hold  attention.  It  is  easy,  in  presenting  proof  after 
proof,  to  fall  into  some  formula  of  statement  or  some 
"stereotyped"  method  of  arrangement.  This  habit 
should  be  carefully  avoided,  and  variety  in  word, 
phrase,  and  manner  should  be  sought  from  the  be- 
ginning. 

But,  in  seeking  for  the  qualities  that  attract,  the 
qualities  that  convince  must  not  be  forgotten.     In 


228  Argumentation  and  Debate 


i> 


order  to  convince,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  the  materials 
of  the  proof  are  well  arranged  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker;  the  arrangement  must  be  made  clear  to 
the  audience.  Variety  and  smoothness  do  not  require 
that  the  relative  importance  of  the  points  of  the  brief, 
or  their  connection  with  one  another,  be  obscured.  In 
fact,  in  spoken  discourse,  even  more  care  needs  to  be 
taken  in  the  final  presentation  than  in  the  brief  itself, 
to  make  clear  the  importance  and  the  mutual  relation 
of  the  points.  In  the  brief,  the  indenting  of  the  head- 
ings and  subheadings  and  the  use  of  the  symbols, 
show  to  the  eye  how  the  evidence  and  arguments  are 
related  to  one  another  and  to  the  whole  question,  and 
distinguish  between  the  important  and  the  incidental 
parts.  But  in  spoken  and  in  written  presentation, 
where  there  are  not  headings  or  subheadings,  these 
things  must  be  made  evident  by  explanation ;  the 
large  and  vital  facts  must  be  enforced  by  repetition, 
by  illustration,  by  direct  explanation  of  their  signifi- 
cance, or  by  some  other  of  the  many  possible  methods 
of  emphasis ;  the  relation  of  one  piece  of  evidence  to 
another  must  often  be  fully  explained,  or  the  purpose 
and  effect  of  various  arguments  must  be  made  evi- 
dent to  the  reader. 

The  following  quotation  illustrates  the  effectiveness 
of  one  method  of  gaining  emphasis,  viz.,  by  digressing 
in  the  middle  of  an  argument  to  explain  the  signifi- 
cance of  a  piece  of  evidence.  The  selection  is  taken 
from  the  speech  by  William  C.  Plunkett  in  the  case  of 
Rex  vs.  Fofbes  and  others.     The  defendants  were  on 


The  Discussion  229 

trial  for  participation  in  a  riot.  They  were  charged 
with  hurling  bottles  and  other  missiles  at  the  Lord- 
lieutenant  of  Ireland  in  a  public  theatre. 

"  When  I  state  that  a  bottle  was  thrown  at  the  king's 
representative,  and  that  implements  of  violence  were  flung 
at  his  person,  such  is  the  state  of  the  public  mind  that  it 
is  Hstened  to  as  if  it  were  a  mere  bagatelle,  a  jeu  d^espritj 
a  trifle  of  which  the  Lord  Lieutenant  need  not  take  any 
notice,  and  which  is  below  the  attention  of  the  government 
and  the  law  officers.  Why,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  are  we 
awake  ?  Can  we  be  insensible  to  the  effect  of  such  occur- 
rences upon  the  honor  and  safety  of  the  country  ?  Can 
we  reflect,  without  indignation,  that  such  an  outrage  should 
be  committed  in  a  civilized  country  against  the  person  of 
his  majesty's  representative,  because  he  had  the  presump- 
tion, in  opposition  to  a  desperate  gang,  to  execute  the 
parting  injunctions  of  the  king  in  a  manner  not  calculated 
to  give  offence  or  excite  animosity  ?  "  ^ 

Iteration,  the  persistent  repetition  of  a  word  or 
phrase,  may  also  be  forcibly  used  to  impress  an  idea 
on  a  reader's  memory.  This  device  is  well  illustrated 
in  the  following  passage  from  Matthew  Arnold :  — 

"  The  practical  genius  of  our  people  could  not  but  urge 
irresistibly  to  the  production  of  a  real  prose  style,  because 
for  the  purposes  of  modern  life  the  old  English  prose,  the 
prose  of  Milton  and  Taylor,  is  cumbersome,  unavailable, 
impossible.  A  style  of  regularity,  uniformity,  precision, 
balance,  was  wanted.  These  are  the  qualities  of  a  ser- 
viceable prose  style.  Poetry  was  a  different  logic,  as 
Coleridge  said,  from  prose.     But  there  is  no  doubt  that  a 

1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  638. 


230  Argumentatio7i  and  Debate 

style  of  regularity,  uniformity,  precision,  balance,  will  ac- 
quire a  yet  stronger  hold  upon  the  mind  of  a  nation  if  it 
is  adopted  in  poetry  as  well  as  in  prose,  and  so  comes  to 
govern  both.  This  is  what  happened  in  France.  To  the 
practical,  modern,  and  social  genius  of  the  French  a  true 
prose  was  indispensable.  They  produced  one  of  conspic- 
uous excellence,  supremely  powerful  and  influential  in  the 
last  century,  the  first  to  come  and  standing  at  first  alone, 
a  modern  prose.  French  prose  is  marked  in  the  highest 
degree  by  the  qualities  of  regularity,  uniformity,  precision, 
balance.  With  little  opposition  from  any  deep-seated  and 
imperious  poetic  instincts,  the  French  made  their  poetry 
also  conform  to  the  law  which  was  moulding  their  prose. 
French  poetry  became  marked  with  the  qualities  of  regu- 
larity, uniformity,  precision,  balance.  ...  Our  literature 
required  a  prose  which  conformed  to  the  true  law  of  prose ; 
and  that  it  might  acquire  this  the  more  surely,  it  compelled 
poetry,  as  in  France,  to  conform  itself  to  the  law  of  prose 
likewise.  .  .  .  Poetry,  or  rather  the  use  of  verse,  entered 
in  a  remarkable  degree,  during  the  [eighteenth]  century, 
into  the  whole  of  the  daily  life  of  the  civilized  classes  ; 
and  the  poetry  of  the  century  was  a  perpetual  school  of 
the  qualities  requisite  for  a  good  prose,  qualities  of  regu- 
larity, uniformity,  precision,  balance."^ 

There  are  few  methods  of  making  a  vivid  impres- 
sion on  the  attention  and  memory  of  an  audience, 
more  forcible  than  the  use  of  the  so-called  rhetorical 
question.  The  rhetorical  question  is  one  in  which 
the  answer  is  implied  in  the  form  of  the  question ; 
as,  for  example,  "  Is  the  United  States  a  republic  or 
a  despotism  .?""  The  value  of  this  device  lies  largely, 
in  the  effect  of  variety  and  incisiveness  which  it  im- 

1  Genung,  "The  Working  Principles  of  Rhetoric,"  p.  304. 


The  Discussion  23 1 

parts.     The  following  illustration  is  from  Webster's 
speech  in  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders :  — 

"  We  come  before  the  court  alleging  the  law  to  be  void 
and  unconstitutional ;  they  stop  the  inquiry  by  opposing 
to  us  the  law  itself.  Is  this  logical  ?  .  .  .  Is  it  not  ob- 
vious, that,  supposing  the  act  of  New  York  to  be  a  part  of 
the  contract,  the  question  still  remains  as  undecided  as 
ever.  What  is  that  act  ?  Is  it  a  law,  or  is  it  a  nullity  ?  a 
thing  of  force,  or  a  thing  of  no  force?  Suppose  the  parties 
to  have  contemplated  this  act,  what  did  they  contemplate  ? 
its  words  only,  or  its  legal  effect  ?  its  words,  or  the  force 
which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  allows  to  it  ? 
If  the  parties  contemplated  any  law,  they  contemplated  all 
the  law  that  bore  on  their  contract,  the  aggregate  of  all 
the  statute  and  constitutional  provisions."^ 

In  contrast  with  the  defects  of  lack  of  variety  and 
emphasis,  stands  the  great  weakness  of  lack  of  unity. 
Emphasis  puts  stress  upon  the  significant  points 
of  the  proof.  However,  as  we  have  already  seen,  to 
be  convincing,  a  speaker  or  writer  must  make  his 
audience  or  reader  accept,  not  this  point  or  that,  but 
his  whole  case.  In  order  thus  to  establish  the  propo- 
sition as  a  whole,  in  presenting  the  proof  the  dif- 
ferent elements  must  be  firmly  bound  together  in 
one.  The  introduction  and  the  conclusion  are  of 
great  service  in  gaining  this  effect ;  but  it  is  danger- 
ous to  leave  this  work  entirely  to  these  external  aids. 
There  must  be  coherence  within  the  proof,  as  well  as 
ropes  and  bands  without.     To  depend  for  unity  en- 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  30.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


232  Argtunentation  and  Debate 

tirely  upon  the  partition  at  the  beginning  and  the 
summary  at  the  end,  is  Ukely  to  make  it  seem  artificial 
and  forced ;  to  gain  an  effect  that  is  natural  and  con- 
vincing, the  unity  must  be  made  evident  in  the  proof 
itself. 

There  are  three  valuable  aids  in  getting  unity  in 
the  proof  itself,  viz. :  (i)  transitions,  (2)  summaries, 
(3)  partitions.  It  is  not  true  that  these  devices  are 
desirable  in  every  piece  of  argumentation.  Often 
the  proofs  are  of  such  a  nature,  their  connection 
with  one  another  is  so  obvious,  that  summaries  and 
partitions  within  the  proof  are  unnecessary;  some- 
times these  devices  are  positively  undesirable,  because 
they  give  an  air  of  exactness  and  formality  that  is 
inappropriate.  The  practice  of  such  methods  may 
easily  be  carried  to  an  extreme ;  but  the  common  dan- 
ger is  that  of  deficiency  rather  than  that  of  excess. 

Transitions,  summaries,  and  partitions  are  also  of 
high  value  as  aids  to  cohere^tce,  A  speaker,  leading 
an  audience  along  new  paths,  needs  to  keep  in  close 
touch  with  them,  lest  they  lose  the  way  and  become 
confused.  By  the  use  of  transitional  sentences  and 
paragraphs  he  holds  them  always  under  a  firm  control, 
and  is  enabled  to  guide  them  carefully,  so  that  the 
way  is  constantly  opening  ahead  at  each  step. 

John  Ward,  in  his  "  System  of  Oratory,"  explains 
a  transition  as  follows  :  — 

"  A  transition^  therefore,  is  a  form  of  speech  by  which 
the  speaker  in  a  few  words  tells  his  hearers  both  what  he  has 
said  already  and  what  he  next  designs  to  say.     Where  a  dis- 


The  Discussion  233 

course  consists  of  several  parts  this  is  often  very  proper 
in  passing  from  one  to  another,  especially  when  the  parts 
are  of  a  considerable  length ;  for  it  assists  the  hearers  to 
carry  on  the  series  of  the  discourse  in  their  mind,  which 
is  a  great  advantage  to  the  memory.  It  is  likewise  a  great 
relief  to  the  attention  to  be  told  when  an  argument  is 
finished  and  what  is  to  be  expected  next."^ 

Mr.  Ward  also  gives  an  excellent  illustration  of  the 
use  of  the  simple  transition :  — 

"  Cicero,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe  formerly, 
divides  his  oration  for  the  Manilian  law  into  three  parts, 
and  proposes  to  speak,  first  of  the  nature  of  the  war  against 
king  Mithridates^  then  of  its  greatness,  and  lastly  of  the  choice 
of  a  general.  And  when  he  has  gone  thro'  the  first  head, 
which  is  pretty  long,  he  connects  it  with  the  second,  by 
this  short  transition  :  Having  shown  the  nature  of  the  war, 
I  shall  now  speak  a  few  things  of  its  greatness.  And  again, 
at  the  conclusion  of  his  second  head,  he  reminds  his 
hearers  of  his  method  in  the  following  manner :  /  think  I 
have  sufficiently  shewn  the  necessity  of  this  war  from  the 
nature  of  it,  and  the  danger  of  it  from  its  greatness.  What 
remains  is  to  speak  concerning  the  choice  of  a  general,  proper 
to  be  intrusted  with  it.^^^ 

The  following  is  a  good  example  of  a  clear  and 
easy  simple  transition,  from  George  William  Curtis's 
report  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  be- 
half of  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  1876:  — 

"  But  while  these  are  the  necessary  results  of  the  pres- 
ent system  of  admission,  both  upon  the  service  itself  and 
upon  the  character  of  those  who  are  employed  in  it,  there 
are  evils  to  be  considered  still  more  serious." 

1  John  Ward,  "A  System  of  Oratory,"  Vol.  I,  p.  290. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  I,  p.  291. 


234  Argumentation  and  Debate 

The  use  of  the  summary  within  the  discussion  con- 
tributes to  unity,  by  gathering  together  proofs  that 
are  closely  associated,  and  relating  them  clearly  to 
the  whole  proposition.  They  bring  the  materials 
thus  summarized  into  one  single  strong  point,  instead 
of  a  number  of  scattered  and  incomplete  points. 
Also  the  summary  contributes  to  clearness,  by  closing 
up  the  division  of  the  proof  that  is  completed,  and 
making  it  evident  that  a  new  line  of  argument  is  to 
be  undertaken.  Finally,  these  occasional  summaries 
help  greatly  in  making  intelligible  the  final  summary 
in  the  conclusion. 

In  the  report  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission  of 
1 87 1,  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  short,  simple, 
and  direct  style  of  summary  that  is  most  effective  for 
use  within  the  proof  itself  :  — 

"  These  are  some  of  the  serious  and  threatening  evils 
of  the  present  practice  of  treating  the  inferior  posts  of  ad- 
ministration as  party  prizes.  It  exasperates  party  spirit 
and  perverts  the  election.  It  tends  to  fill  the  public  ser- 
vice with  incapacity  and  corruption,  destroying  its  reputa- 
tion and  repelling  good  men.  It  entices  Congress  to  desert 
the  duties  to  which  it  is  especially  designated  by  the  Con- 
stitution, and  tempts  the  Executive  to  perilous  intrigue." 

The  writer  then  takes  up  a  new  line  of  argument 
with  the  following  introductory  sentence  :  — 

*'  The  arguments  by  which  the  present  pernicious  prac- 
tice is  justified  seem  to  us  wholly  unsound."  ^ 

1  George  William  Curtis,  Orations  and  Addresses,  Vol.  II,  p.  43. 


The  Discussion  235 

Internal  partitions  perform  much  the  same  office 
as  the  external  partition  of  the  introduction.  They 
turn  the  attention  in  the  desired  direction  and  explain 
what  will  be  done  next,  so  that  the  audience  can  fol- 
low the  line  of  thought  that  is  to  come.  Webster 
showed  his  mastery  of  the  arts  of  clearness  by  his 
frequent  use  of  this  kind  of  partition.  No  better 
model  can  be  found  than  the  following,  taken  from 
his  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Luther  vs,  Borden  et  at:  — 

"  Having  thus,  may  it  please  your  honors,  attempted  to 
state  the  questions  as  they  arise,  and  having  referred  to 
what  has  taken  place  in  Rhode  Island,  I  shall  present 
what  further  I  have  to  say  in  three  propositions :  — 

"  I.  I  say,  first,  that  the  matters  offered  to  be  proved 
by  the  plaintiff  in  the  court  below  are  not  of  judicial 
cognizance ;  and  proof  of  them,  therefore,  was  properly 
rejected  by  the  court. 

*'2.  If  all  these  matters  could  be,  and  had  been, 
legally  proved,  they  would  have  constituted  no  defence, 
because  they  show  nothing  but  an  illegal  attempt  to  over- 
throw the  government  of  Rhode  Island. 

"3.  No  proof  was  offered  by  the  plaintiff  to  show  that, 
in  fact,  another  government  had  gone  into  operation, 
by  which  the  Charter  government  had  become  displaced."  ^ 

The  summary  and  partition  are  very  effective  in 
combination;  the  summary  showing  what  has  been 
done,  and  the  partition  what  remains  to  be  done, 
thus  establish  beyond  a  doubt  the  'unity  of  the  demon- 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  236.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


236  Argumentation  and  Debate 

stration,  and  give  to  the  readers  a  clear  understanding 
of  what  is  being  accomplished.  This  combination 
should,  however,  be  used  with  judgment,  for  it  is  the 
most  formal  of  all  the  methods  of  transition.  It  is 
most  properly  used  where  the  proof  is  very  long,  and 
where  the  quality  most  to  be  sought  for  is  that  of 
logical  perfection.  For  example,  it  is  most  appropri- 
ate in  such  an  effort  as  that  of  Mr.  Webster  before  the 
Supreme^  Court  in  the  case  of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden :  — 

"  I  contend,  therefore,  in  conclusion  on  this  point,  that 
the  power  of  Congress  over  these  high  branches  of  com- 
mercial regulation  is  shown  to  be  exclusive,  by  consider- 
ing what  was  wished  and  intended  to  be  done,  when  the 
convention  for  forming  the  Constitution  was  called;  by 
what  was  understood,  in  the  State  conventions,  to  have 
been  accomplished  by  the  instrument ;  by  the  prohibitions 
on  the  States,  and  the  express  exception  relative  to  inspec- 
tion laws  ;  by  the  nature  of  the  power  itself ;  by  the  terms 
used,  as  connected  with  the  nature  of  the  power ;  by  the 
subsequent  understanding  and  practice,  both  of  Congress 
and  the  States ;  by  the  grant  of  exclusive  admiralty  juris- 
diction to  the  federal  government ;  by  the  manifest  danger 
of  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  the  ruinous  consequences  to 
which  it  directly  leads.  .  .  .  But  I  contend,  in  the  second 
place,  that  whether  the  grant  were  to  be  regarded  as 
wholly  void  or  not,  it  must,  at  least,  be  inoperative,  when 
the  rights  claimed  under  it  come  in  collision  with  other 
rights,  enjoyed  and  secured  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States ;  and  such  collision,  I  maintain,  clearly  exists  in 
this  case."  ^ 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  18-19.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


The  Discussion  237 

Persuasion 

Of  persuasion  in  the  discussion  little  need  be  said. 
The  reason  for  not  giving  it  more  extended  treat- 
ment is  not  that  it  is  unimportant.  On  the  con- 
trary, persuasion  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  the 
proofs  effective.  Certain  general  suggestions  as  to 
the  methods  of  persuasion  have  been  given  in  the 
chapter  on  Presentation  ;  but  beyond  this,  particular 
directions  as  to  how  to  persuade  are  impracticable. 
In  general,  the  things  to  be  sought  are  a  knowledge 
of  the  audience,  a  close  sympathy  with  their  emotions, 
alertness  to  seize  on  any  opportunity  for  an  appeal, 
and  tact  in  the  handling  of  human  nature.  Much 
may  be  gained  from  a  study  of  the  use  of  persuasion 
by  the  great  orators. 


PROPERiyOF 
DEPARTf^HT  Of  DRAIHATIC  ART 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  CONCLUSION 

Twenty-two  centuries  ago  Aristotle  said  that  the 
object  of  the  epilogue  or  conclusion  was  fourfold : 
first,  to  conciliate  the  audience  in  favor  of  the  speaker 
and  to  excite  them  against  his  adversary;  secondly, 
to  amplify  and  diminish ;  thirdly,  to  rouse  the  emo- 
tions ;  and  fourthly,  to  recapitulate.  Time  has  not 
changed  the  truth  of  his  statement ;  these  are  to-day 
the  offices  of  the  conclusion.  Clearly,  two  of  these 
are  concerned  with  conviction  and  two  with  persua- 
sion. To  recapitulate  and  to  *' amplify  and  diminish" 
are  desirable,  in  order  to  make  complete  the  appeal  to 
reason ;  to  gain  sympathy  and  to  rouse  the  passions 
are  desirable,  in  order  to  appeal  successfully  to  the 
emotions. 

Conviction 

In  argumentation  the  first  object  of  the  conclusion 
is,  to  recapitulate  or  summarize.  The  concluding 
summary  is  generally  necessary,  in  order  to  make  the 
proof  clear  and  forcible.  In  the  first  place,  the  points 
made  in  the  discussion  must  finally  be  gathered  to- 
gether into  a  single  point,  in  order  to  convince  the 
audience  of  the  strength  of  the  demonstration  as  a 
whole ;  again,  the  various  points  must  be  repeated 

238 


The  ConcliLsion  239 

and  emphasized,  in  order  to  impress  them  on  the 
memory  of  the  audience. 

The  summary  may  take  a  variety  of  forms,  with 
varying  degrees  of  length  and  formality.  In  nearly 
all  student  argumentation  the  summary  needs  to  be 
careful  and  detailed ;  the  main  heads  of  the  proof 
must  be  repeated,  and  usually  many  of  the  subordi- 
nate points  of  the  evidence.  Rhetorically,  the  sum- 
mary may  take  the  form  of  a  plain  recapitulation,  or 
it  may  be  amplified  by  explanation  and  enforcement. 

One  of  the  best  examples  of  a  simple  recapitula- 
tion is  found  in  the  conclusion  of  Webster's  speech 
in  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders  :  — 

"  To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said,  we  maintain,  first, 
that  the  Constitution,  by  its  grants  to  Congress  and  its 
prohibitions  on  the  statea,  has  sought  to  establish  one  uni- 
form standard  of  value,  or  medium  of  payment.  Second, 
that,  by  like  means,  it  has  endeavored  to  provide  for  one 
uniform  mode  of  discharging  debts,  when  they  are  to  be 
discharged  without  payment.  Third,  that  these  objects 
are  connected,  and  that  the  first  loses  much  of  its  impor- 
tance, if  the  last,  also,  be  not  accomplished.  Fourth,  that, 
reading  the  grant  to  Congress  and  the  prohibition  on  the 
States  together,  the  inference  is  strong  that  the  Constitu- 
tion intended  to  confer  an  exclusive  power  to  pass  bank- 
rupt laws  on  Congress.  Fifth,  that  the  prohibition  in  the 
tenth  section  reaches  to  all  contracts,  existing  or  future,  in 
the  same  way  that  the  other  prohibition,  in  the  same  sec- 
tion, extends  to  all  debts,  existing  or  future.  Sixthly,  that, 
upon  any  other  construction,  one  great  political  object  of 
the  Constitution  will  fail  of  its  accomplishment."^ 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  W^ebster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  40. 


240  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Usually,  however,  the  summary  is  less  formal  than 
the  above  in  its  phrasing,  and  less  abrupt  in  its  end- 
ing. The  more  common  style  is  such  as  that  in 
Burke's  speech,  on  a  bill  for  shortening  the  duration 
of  Parliaments :  — 

"  Thus,  in  my  opinion,  the  shortness  of  a  triennial  sit- 
ting would  have  the  following  ill  effects :  it  would  make 
the  member  more  shamelessly  and  shockingly  corrupt,  it 
would  increase  his  dependence  on  those  who  could  best 
support  him  at  his  election,  it  would  wrack  and  tear  to 
pieces  the  fortunes  of  those  who  stood  upon  their  own 
fortunes  and  their  private  interest;  it  would  make  the 
electors  infinitely  more  venal,  and  it  would  make  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  who  are,  whether  they  have  votes  or 
not,  concerned  in  elections,  more  lawless,  more  idle,  more 
debauched ;  it  would  utterly  destroy  the  sobriety,  the  in- 
dustry, the  integrity,  the  simplicity  of  all  the  people,  and 
undermine,  I  am  much  afraid,  the  deepest  and  best  laid 
foundations  of  the  commonwealth."^ 

"  Amplify  and  diminish  "  is  the  name  given  to  the 
practice  of  magnifying  the  importance  of  certain 
points  in  the  discussion,  and  belittling  the  importance 
of  others.  In  doing  this,  a  disputant  may  diminish 
certain  of  his  own  proofs  and  amplify  certain  others, 
his  purpose  being  to  bring  out  the  force  of  the  greater 
points,  by  contrast  with  the  lesser.  But  usually,  the 
practice  consists  in  diminishing,  not  one's  own  proof, 
but  the  proof  of  an  opponent.  In  such  a  case,  its 
effectiveness  consists  in  the  direct  contrasting  of  the 

1  The  Speeches  of  Edmund  Burke,  p.  400.  James  Duffy,  Dublin, 
1871. 


The  Conclusion  241 

arguments  on  the  opposite  sides.  The  decision  of 
any  question  is  determined  by  a  comparison,  in  the 
minds  of  those  addressed,  of  the  relative  weight  of 
the  proofs  of  the  two  arguers,  so  that  a  disputant 
may  help  his  cause  just  as  truly,  by  diminishing  the 
weight  of  the  proof  against  him,  as  by  adding  to  that 
of  his  own.  In  any  question,  there  are  always  some 
phases  of  it  that  are  favorable  to  one  side,  and  others 
that  are  favorable  to  the  other  side  ;  on  certain  points, 
the  facts  support  the  affirmative,  on  others,  they  sup- 
port the  negative.  So,  the  beliefs  of  the  audience  or 
readers  about  the  proposition,  as  a  whole,  will  be 
determined  largely  by  their  opinions  as  to  which 
phase,  or  what  points,  are  really  important.  For  illus- 
tration, in  a  discussion  of  the  question  as  to  whether 
a  protective  tariff  would  be  beneficial  to  the  United 
States,  the  affirmative  might  successfully  maintain 
that  such  a  tariff  would  help  to  build  up  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country,  whereas,  the  negative  might  be 
able  to  prove  that  the  tariff  would  tend  to  diminish 
our  foreign  commerce.  Then,  in  this  case,  if  the 
audience  thought  that  foreign  commerce  was  more 
desirable  than  new  industries,  they  would  support 
the  negative  of  the  question,  and  vice  versa.  Clearly, 
then,  it  would  be  the  policy  of  the  affirmative  to  per- 
suade the  audience  that  the  building  up  of  industry 
at  home  was  of  more  importance  to  the  country  as  a 
whole  than  the  building  up  of  commerce  abroad.  In 
this  way  the  affirmative  could  weaken  its  opponents, 
by  belittling  the  significance  of  the  points  they  had 


242  Argumentation  and  Debate 

proved  and  magnifying  the  significance  of  its  own 
points,  just  as  surely  as  it  could  by  a  direct  attack 
upon  their  arguments  or  evidence.  This  is  one  of 
the  most  common  kinds  of  amplifying  and  diminish- 
ing. It  may,  however,  take  various  forms;  it  may 
consist  in  a  contrasting  of  the  results  of  two  opposite 
policies,  a  contrasting  of  the  evidence  of  the  two 
sides,  or  a  contrasting  of  the  motives  of  the  two  par- 
ties ;  but  in  all  these  the  purpose  is  the  same,  viz. : 
to  compare  the  two  proofs  as  a  whole,  and  show  the 
preponderance  of  the  one  over  the  other.  In  student 
debates,  where  both  the  materials  of  the  discussion 
and  the  time  are  narrowly  limited,  so  that  the  conflict 
of  the  opposing  proofs  is  peculiarly  direct,  to  amplify 
and  diminish  is  especially  effective. 

Mr.  Evarts,  in  his  argument  in  the  case  of  the 
Savannah  Privateers,  uses  this  artifice,  diminishing 
the  case  of  the  defence  and  amplifying  his  own  case 
in  prosecution :  — 

"  And  now,  here  is  your  duty,  here  your  post  of  fidelity, 
not  against  law,  not  against  the  least  right  under  the  law, 
but  to  sustain,  by  whatever  sacrifice  there  may  be  of  sen- 
timent or  of  feeling,  the  law  and  the  Constitution.  I  need 
not  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  if,  on  a  state  of  facts  which 
admits  no  diversity  of  opinion,  with  these  opposite  forces 
arrayed,  as  they  now  are,  before  you  —  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  the  com- 
mission of  this  learned  court,  derived  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  the  venire  and  impanelling  of 
this  jury,  made  under  the  laws  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  on  our  side  ;  met,  on  their  side,  by  nothing, 


The  Conclusion  243 

on  behalf  of  the  prisoners,  but  the  commission,  the  power, 
the  right,  the  authority  of  the  rebel  government,  proceed- 
ing from  Jefferson  Davis  —  you  are  asked  by  the  law,  or 
under  the  law,  or  against  the  law,  in  some  form,  to  recog- 
nize this  power,  and  thus  to  say  that  the  vigor,  the  judg- 
ment, the  sense,  and  the  duty  of  a  jury,  to  confine  themselves 
to  their  responsibility  on  the  facts  of  the  case,  are  worth- 
less and  yielding  before  impressions  of  a  discursive  and 
loose  and  general  nature.  Be  sure  of  it,  gentlemen,  that, 
on  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  facts  concerning  this  particu- 
lar transaction,  a  verdict  of  acquittal  is  nothing  but  a  de- 
termination that  our  government  and  its  authority,  in  the 
premises  of  this  trial,  for  the  purposes  of  your  verdict, 
are  met  and  overthrown  by  the  protection  thrown  around 
the  prisoners  by  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States 
of  America,  actual  or  incipient."^ 

Persuasion 

The  necessity  of  an  appeal  for  sympathy,  in  the 
conclusion,  is  too  obvious  to  need  explanation.  When 
the  speech  is  over,  or  the  essay  is  finished,  the  time 
has  come  for  the  hearer  or  reader  to  act  or  deliberate 
on  action;  he  must,  then,  be  favorably  disposed  in 
his  feelings  toward  the  speaker  or  v^^riter,  in  order  to 
give  his  side  a  fair  and  favorable  consideration.  All 
the  labors  of  persuasion,  in  the  introduction  and  in 
the  discussion,  may  be  lost,  if  the  emotions  aroused 
there  are  allowed  to  lapse  at  the  end.  The  sympathy 
for  the  speaker  and  his  subject,  which  has  already 
been  stirred,  must  be  left  active  in  the  minds  of  the 

1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  420. 


244  Argumentation  and  Debate 

audience,  when  he  at  length  submits  his  case  to  their 
hands  for  judgment. 

The  conclusion  reaps  the  harvest  of  sympathy, 
sowed  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  argument.  Aristotle 
suggests  that  this  last  effort  of  persuasion  may  be  an 
app'eal  by  the  speaker  for  favor  for  himself  and  his 
cause,  or  it  may  be  an  attack  on  the  character  or 
cause  of  an  opponent.  A  good  use  of  these  methods, 
in  combination,  is  found  in  the  argument  of  Sergeant 
Prentiss  in  defence  of  Edward  C.  Wilkinson,  who 
was  on  trial  for  murder.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
selection  he  directly  attacks  the  instigator  of  the  trial, 
and  later,  the  chief  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  clos- 
ing with  a  brief' appeal  for  sympathy  for  himself:  — 

"  But  there  is  a  murderer ;  and,  strange  to  say,  his 
name  appears  upon  the  indictment,  not  as  a  criminal,  but 
as  a  prosecutor.  His  garments  are  wet  with  the  blood  of 
those  upon  whose  deaths  you  hold  this  solemn  inquest. 
Yonder  he  sits,  allaying  for  a  moment  the  hunger  of  that 
fierce  vulture,  conscience,  by  casting  before  it  the  food  of 
pretended  regret,  and  false  but  apparent  eagerness  for 
justice.  He  hopes  to  appease  the  manes  of  his  slaugh- 
tered victims  —  victims  to  his  falsehood  and  treachery  — 
by  sacrificing  upon  their  graves  a  hecatomb  of  innocent 
men.  By  base  misrepresentations  of  the  conduct  of  the 
defendants,  he  induced  his  imprudent  friends  to  attempt 
a  vindication  of  his  pretended  wrongs  by  violence  and 
bloodshed.  .  .  . 

"  Upon  his  head  rests  not  only  all  the  blood  shed  in 
this  unfortunate  strife,  but  also  the  soul-kiiling  crime  of 
perjury ;  for,  surely  as  he  lives,  did  the  words  of  craft  and 
falsehood  fall  from  his  lips,  ere  they  were  hardly  loosened 


The  Conclusion  _  245 

from  the  Holy  Volume.  But  I  dismiss  him,  and  do  con- 
sign him  to  the  furies  —  trusting,  in  all  charity,  that  the 
terrible  punishment  he  must  suffer  from  the  scorpion  lash 
of  a  guilty  conscience  will  be  considered  in  his  last  account. 

"  Johnson  and  Oldham,  too,  are  murderers  at  heart.  But 
I  shall  make  to  them  no  appeal.  There  is  no  chord  in 
their  bosoms  which  can  render  back  music  to  the  touch  of 
feeling.  They  have  both  perjured  themselves.  The  former 
cut  up  the  truth  as  coolly  as  if  he  had  been  carving  meat 
in  his  own  stall.  The  latter,  on  the  contrary,  was  no 
longer  the  bold  and  hot-blooded  knight,  but  the  shrinking, 
pale-faced  witness.  Cowering  beneath  your  stern  and 
indignant  gaze,  marked  you  not  how  '  his  coward  lip  did 
from  its  color  fly  ' ;  and  how  his  quailing  eye  sought  from 
floor  to  rafter  protection  from  each  honest  glance.  .  .  . 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  —  I  shall  detain  you  no  longer. 
...  I  had  hoped,  when  the  evidence  was  closed,  that 
the  commonwealth's  attorney  might  have  found  it  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  duty  and  his  feelings  to  have  entered  at 
once  a  nolle  prosequi.  Could  the  genius  of  'Old  Ken- 
tucky '  have  spoken,  such  would  have  been  her  mandate. 
Blushing  with  shame  at  the  inhospitable  conduct  of  a 
portion  of  her  sons,  she  would  have  hastened  to  make 
reparation. 

''Gentlemen:  Let  her  sentiments  be  spoken  by  you. 
Let  your  verdict  take  character  from  the  noble  State 
which  you  in  part  represent.  Without  leaving  your  box, 
announce  to  the  world  that  here  the  defence  of  one's  own 
person  is  no  crime,  and  that  the  protection  of  a  brother's 
life  is  the  subject  of  approbation  rather  than  of  punishment. 

"Gentlemen  of  the  Jury:  I  return  you  my  most  pro- 
found and  sincere  thanks  for  the  kindness  with  which  you 
have  listened  to  me,  a  stranger,  pleading  the  cause  of 
strangers.    Your  generous  and  indulgent  treatment  I  shall 


246  A?'gumentation  and  Debate 

ever  remember  with  the  most  grateful  emotions.  In  full 
confidence  that  you,  by  your  sense  of  humanity  and  justice, 
will  supply  the  many  defects  in  my  feeble  advocacy,  I  now 
resign  into  your  hands  the  fate  of  my  clients.  As  you 
shall  do  unto  them,  so,  under  like  circumstances,  may  it 
be  done  unto  you."^ 

But  gaining  sympathy  for  one's  self  is  not  the  whole 
of  persuasion.  The  emotions,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  the  mainsprings  of  action,  must  be  given  a  final 
stimulus.  It  is  never  safe  to  leave  all  appeal  to  the 
emotions  to  be  made  in  the  conclusion;  the  feelings 
must  be  stirred  in  the  introduction,  and  kept  con- 
stantly active  through  all  the  discussion.  But  there 
the  work  of  persuasion  is  only  begun ;  in  order  to 
bring  the  emotions  finally  into  play,  they  must  be 
wrought  to  the  highest  pitch  of  all  at  the  close,  and 
directed  to  the  desired  end.  Consequently,  in  any 
great  oration,  it  is  in  the  peroration  that  we  find  the 
most  impassioned  eloquence ;  it  is  here  that  the 
orator  spends  his  powers  freely  in  the  final  appeal. 
The  conclusion  must  complete,  and  give  carrying 
force  to  the  work  of  persuasion,  as  it  does  to  the 
work  of  conviction. 

The  emotions  are  so  many,  and  the  possible  ways 
of  stirring  them  so  varied,  that  examples  are  not  of 
any  real  value.  To  gain  such  power  requires  a  study 
of  the  whole  field  of  the  persuasive  art  —  a  study 
of  human  nature,  a  study  of  audiences,  a '  study  of 
the  world's  oratory.     Finally,  to  develop  the  fruits 

1  "Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  pp.  121-123. 


The  Conclusion  247 

of  study  into  real  power,  demands,  in  the  words  of 
Demosthenes,  **  Practice  !  practice  !  practice  !  " 

To  choose  an  example  of  persuasion  in  the  con- 
clusion, involves  discrimination  among  many  of  the 
most  brilliant  passages  in  the  world's  oratory.  The 
following,  from  the  speech  by  Grattan  on  the  "  Decla- 
ration of  Irish  Right,"  is  not  given  as,  in  any  sense, 
the  best;  it  is  simply  an  illustration:  — 

"  I  might,  as  a  constituent,  come  to  your  bar  and 
demand  my  liberty.  I  do  call  upon  you  by  the  laws  of 
the  land,  and  their  violation ;  by  the  instruction  of  eigh- 
teen centuries ;  by  the  arms,  inspiration,  and  providence 
of  the  present  movement  —  tell  us  the  rule  by  which  we 
shall  go ;  assert  the  law  of  Ireland  ;  declare  the  liberty  of 
the  land !  I  will  not  be  answered  by  a  public  lie,  in  the 
shape  of  an  amendment;  nor,  speaking  for  the  subject's 
freedom,  am  I  to  hear  of  faction.  I  wish  for  nothing  but 
to  breathe  in  this  our  island,  in  common  with  my  fellow- 
subjects,  the  air  of  liberty.  I  have  no  ambition,  unless  it 
be  to  break  your  chains  and  contemplate  your  glory.  I 
never  shall  be  satisfied  so  long  as  the  meanest  cottager  in 
Ireland  has  a  link  of  the  British  chain  clanking  to  his  rags. 
He  may  be  naked,  he  shall  not  be  in  irons.  And  I  do  see 
the  time  at  hand ;  the  spirit  has  gone  forth ;  the  declara- 
tion of  right  is  planted,  and  though  great  men  should  fall 
off,  the  cause  will  live ;  and  though  he  who  utters  this 
should  die,  yet  the  immortal  fire  shall  outlast  the  organ 
that  conveys  it,  and  the  breath  of  liberty,  like  the  word  of 
the  holy  man,  will  not  die  with  the  prophet,  but  survive 
him."i 

^  Hardwicke,  "  History  of  Oratory  and  Orators,"  p.  138. 


CHAPTER  V 

REFUTATION 

"  Refutation  consists  in  the  destruction  of  oppos- 
ing proofs."  As  suggested  in  this  definition,  refuta- 
tion is,  in  form,  destructive  rather  than  constructive ; 
but  in  its  purposes  and  results  it  is  no  less  service- 
able than  positive  proof.  With  respect  to  any  given 
proposition,  there  are  always  two  contrary  beliefs 
that  a  person  may  hold:  he  may  believe  that  the 
proposition  is  true  or  that  it  is  not  true.  Conse- 
quently, if  we  can  induce  him  to  reject  the  opposite 
of  what  we  uphold,  we  are  thereby  preparing  him 
to  accept  our  own  views.  Negative  argument  pure 
and  simple  is  rarely,  if  ever,  sufficient ;  for  belief  is 
always  essentially  positive  in  nature,  so  that  to 
destroy  without  building  up  will  not  serve  our  pur- 
pose. Refutation,  therefore,  is  properly  auxiliary 
and  supplementary  to  positive  proof.  In  our  attempt 
to  convince  or  persuade  any  man,  we  must  realize  that 
he  will,  almost  surely,  have  in  his  own  mind  many 
preconceived  ideas  and  preestablished  opinions  about 
the  matter  in  discussion,  and  that  many  of  those 
ideas  and  opinions  are  liable  to  be  antagonistic  to 
what  we  are  trying  to  make  him  believe.  In  such 
circumstances,  our  success  must  often  depend  upon 
our  ability  to  destroy  these  hostile  conceptions,  thus 

248 


Refutation  249 

preparing  the  way  for  the  acceptance  of  our  own 
contentions.  The  necessity  for  such  destructive 
effort  is,  of  course,  peculiarly  pressing  in  any  form 
of  disputation  where  the  arguer  is  confronted  by 
some  definite  opponents,  as  in  debate,  or  perhaps  in 
a  newspaper  controversy;  for  here,  the  audience  or 
readers  are  consciously  balancing  the  two  sides  of 
the  question,  and  they  must  be  made  to  see  with 
perfect  clearness,  that  one  side  overthrows  and 
destroys  the  other.  But  in  any  form  of  argumen- 
tative discussion  there  are  always  opponents  of 
some  kind,  either  real  or  imaginary,  and  they  must 
be  mastered  before  we  can  hope  to  make  others 
fully  accept  our  own  beliefs. 

The  partial  or  complete  destruction  of  such  oppos- 
ing opinions  and  arguments  often  calls  for  a  keener 
insight  and  a  more  adroit  attack,  than  does  any  of 
the  positive  work  of  construction.  It  therefore  be- 
comes of  the  first  importance  to  decide  how  much 
one  ought  to  refute,  and  what  are  the  various  methods 
that  may  be  used. 

How  much  to  refute 

Concerning  the  question  of  how  much  to  refute, 
John  Quincy  Adams,  in  his  Lectures  on  Rhetoric  and 
Oratory  (Lecture  XXII),  says  :  — 

**  There  are  three  very  common  errors  in  the  manage- 
ment of  controversy  against  which  I  think  it  proper  here 
to  guard  you,  and  from  which  I  hope  you  will  hereafter 
very  sedulously  guard  yourselves.    The  first  may  be  termed 


250  Argumentation  and  Debate 

answering  too  much  ;  the  second  answering  too  Httle  ;  and 
the  third  answering  yourself,  and  not  your  opponent." 

Speaking  of  the  first  of  these  mistakes,  he  says  :  — 

"  You  answer  too  much  when  you  make  it  an  invariable 
principle  to  reply  to  everything  which  has  been  or  could 
be  said'  by  your  antagonist  on  the  other  side.  ...  If  you 
contend  against  a  diffuse  speaker,  who  has  wasted  hour 
after  hour  in  a  lingering  lapse  of  words,  which  had  little 
or  no  bearing  upon  the  proper  question  between  you,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  you  to  discriminate  between  that  part  of 
his  discourse  which  was  pertinent,  and  that  which  was 
superfluous.  Nor  is  it  less  necessary  to  detect  the  artifice 
of  an  adversary,  who  purposely  mingles  a  flood  of  extra- 
neous matter  with  the  controversy,  for  the  sake  of  disguis- 
ing the  weakness  of  his  cause.  In  the  former  of  these 
two  cases,  if  you  undertake  to  answer  everything  that  has 
been  said,  you  charge  yourself  with  all  the  tediousness 
of  your  adversary,  and  double  the  measure  by  an  equal 
burden  of  your  own.  In  the  latter  you  promote  the  cause 
of  your  antagonist  by  making  yourself  the  dupe  of  his 
stratagem.  If,  then,  you  have  an  opponent  whose  redun- 
dancies arise  only  from  his  weakness,  whose  standard  of 
oratory  is  time,  and  whose  measure  of  eloquence  is  in 
arithmetical  proportion  to  the  multitude  of  his  words, 
your  general  rule  should  be  to  pass  over  all  his  general, 
unappropriate  declamation  in  silence ;  to  take  no  more 
notice  of  it  than  if  it  had  never  been  spoken.  But  if  you 
see  that  the  external  matter  is  obtruded  upon  the  subject 
with  design  to  mislead  your  attention,  and  fix  it  upon 
objects  different  from  that  which  is  really  at  issue,  you 
should  so  far  take  notice  of  it  as  to  point  out  the  artifice, 
and  derive  from  it  an  argument  of  the  most  powerful 
efficacy  to  your  own  side." 


Refutation  251 

The  objections  to  answering  too  many  of  the 
lesser  arguments  of  an  opponent  are  two.  In  the 
first  place,  it  involves  a  loss  of  time  and  energy. 
This  is  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  arguments 
of  an  opponent  who  wastes  himself  in  "  a  lingering 
lapse  of  words,"  which  have  little  or  no  bearing  upon 
the  proper  question.  But  it  is  also  true,  even  when 
the  efforts  of  an  opponent  are  well  directed  at  the 
points  in  issue.  The  greater  part  of  the  materials 
in  any  proof  are,  as  we  have  seen,  only  secondary  in 
nature ;  they  are  of  force  merely  because  they  tend 
to  establish  some  larger,  more  vital  fact.  The  impor- 
tant thing  is,  to  reach  and  overthrow  these  more 
significant  and  critical  parts  of  the  proof :  if  they  can 
be  destroyed,  the  secondary  facts  fall  with  them.  To 
sink  a  battle-ship  does  not  demand  that  every  foot 
of  its  armor  be  twisted  and  torn,  that  every  turret 
and  smoke-stack  be  demolished ;  a  half  dozen  well- 
aimed  shots  is  enough.  It  is  only  necessary  that  the 
vulnerable  spot  be  well  chosen,  and  that  the  aim  be 
sure.  Consequently  it  should  be  the  purpose  of  the 
debater,  in  his  refutation,  to  let  the  lesser  points  of 
his  opponent  pass  unheeded,  and  to  give  his  attention 
only  to  vital  elements.  In  the  second  place,  answering 
too  much  results  in  confusion.  To  attempt  to  refute 
too  many  petty  arguments,  weakens  the  discrimination 
between  the  important  and  the  unimportant,  which 
is  always  necessary  in  argumentation,  if  we  are  to 
make  a  distinct  and  lasting  impression.  Emphasis, 
as  a  means  to  clearness  and  force,  is  just  as  desirable 


252  Argumentation  and  Debate 

in  refutation  as  elsewhere,  and  emphasis  cannot  be 
attained,  if  attention  is  given  alike  to  the  great  and 
the  small  points.  Furthermore,  answering  too  much 
gives  undue  dignity  and  importance  to  many  points 
of  the  other  side.  One  way  to  dispose  of  a  foolish  or 
trivial  point  is  illustrated  by  Cicero  in  his  defence  of 
Q.  Ligarius :  — 

"When  Tubero,  in  his  accusation  of  Ligarius  before 
Caesar,  had  made  it  part  of  his  charge,  that  Ligarius  was 
in  Africa  during  some  part  of  the  civil  war  between  Caesar 
and  Pompey ;  Cicero  in  his  answer,  not  thinking  it  deserved 
a  serious  reply,  contents  himself  with  barely  mentioning 
it  ironically.  For  thus  he  begins  his  defence  of  Ligarius, 
CcBsar,  my  kinsman  Tubero  has  laid  before  you  a  new  crime, 
and  till  this  day  unheard  of ^  that  Q.  Ligarius  was  in  Africa^  ^ 

Insignificant  proofs  are  better  left  insignificant. 
To  bring  them  anew  to  the  attention  of  the  audience, 
and  give  them  the  compliment  of  a  special  reply, 
helps,  rather  than  hinders,  an  opponent. 

Of  the  second  fault,  which  consists  in  answering 
too  little,  Mr.  Adams  says:  — 

"  The  second  error  in  controversy,  against  which  I  am 
anxious  of  warning  you,  is  that  of  answering  too  little.  It 
is  not  unfrequently  found  united  with  that  against  which  I 
have  last  admonished  you.  When  too  much  of  our  strength 
is  lavished  upon  the  outworks,  the  citadel  is  left  propor- 
tionately defenceless.  If  we  say  too  much  upon  points 
extrinsic  to  the  cause,  we  shall  seldom  say  enough  upon 
those  on  which  it  hinges.  To^avoid  this  fault,  therefore, 
it  is  as  essential  to  ascertain  which  are  the  strong  parts  of 

1  John  Ward,  "  A  System  of  Oratory,"  Vol.  II,  p.  366. 


Refutatiojt  253 

your  adversary's  argument  as  it  is  to  escape  the  opposite 
error  of  excess."^ 

The  safeguards  against  the  errors  of  both  these 
extremes  are  the  same  :  analyze  your  adversary's  case, 
pick  out  his  "strong  parts,"  and  answer  them.  It  is 
also  well  to  remember  that,  "  It  is  much  easier  to 
despise  than  to  answer  an  opponent's  argument,  that 
whenever  we  can  indulge  our  contempt  we  are  apt  to 
forget  that  it  is  not  refutation."  Sarcasm  and  scorn 
may  be  aids  to  refutation,  but  they  are  not  substitutes 
for  it.  In  refutation,  then,  the  first  essential  is  to  un- 
derstand what  are  the  few  vital  points  of  the  other 
side. 

Concerning  the  last  and  very  common  error,  which 
consists  in  "  answering  yourself,"  the  comment  made 
by  Mr.  Adams  cannot  be  improved  upon  :  — 

**  But  the  most  inexcusable  of  all  the  errors  in  confuta- 
tion is  that  of  answering  yourself,  instead  of  your  adver- 
sary, which  is  done  whenever  you  suppress,  or  mutilate,  or 
obscure,  or  misstate,  his  reasoning,  and  then  reply  not  to 
his  positions,  but  to  those  which  you  have  substituted  in 
their  stead.  This  practice  is  often  the  result  of  misappre- 
hension, when  a  disputant  mistakes  the  point  of  the  argu- 
ment urged  by  his  adversary ;  but  it  often  arises  also  from 
design,  in  which  case  it  should  be  clearly  detected  and 
indignantly  exposed.  The  dut)"^  of  a  disputant  is  fairly  to 
take  and  fully  to  repel  the  idea  of  his  opponent,  and  not 
his  own.  To  misrepresent  the  meaning  of  your  antagonist 
evinces  a  want  of  candor  which  the  auditory  seldom  fail  to 
perceive,  and  which  engages  their  feelings  in  his  favor. 

1  Adams,  Lectures  on  Rhetoric  and  Oratory,  Vol.  II,  p.  88. 


254  Argumentation  and  Debate 

When  involved  in  controversy,  then,  never  start  against 
yourself  frivolous  objections  for  the  sake  of  showing  how 
easily  you  can  answer  them.  Quinctilian  relates  an  anec- 
dote of  the  poet  Accius,  which  every  controversial  writer 
or  speaker  will  do  well  to  remember.  Accius  was  a  writer 
of  tragedies,  and  being  once  asked  why  he,  whose  dialogue 
was  celebrated  for  its  energy,  did  not  engage  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  bar,  answered,  because  in  his  tragedies  he  could 
make  his  characters  say  what  he  pleased  ;  but  that  at  the 
bar  he  should  have  to  contend  with  persons  who  would  say 
anything  but  what  he  pleased.  There  can  be  no  possible 
advantage  in  supposing  our  antagonist  a  fool.  The  most 
probable  effect  of  such  an  imagination  is  to  prove  our- 
selves so."  ^ 

The  words  of  Accius  should  be  observed  by  every 
student  of  argumentation.  It  is  easy  to  set  up  men 
of  strav^r  and  knock  them  down,  but  it  is  dangerous. 
To  suggest  possible  arguments,  unless  you  are  sure, 
either  that  they  have  already  been  advanced,  or  that 
they  must  be  advanced  by  the  other  side,  is  foolish. 
If  the  arguments  are  worth  while,  do  not  help  your 
adversary  by  suggesting  them ;  if  they  are  not  worth 
while,  it  is  a  waste  of  time  to  notice  them.  Further- 
more, it  gives  an  opponent  the  opportunity  to  ridicule 
the  effort,  by  admitting  or  ignoring  the  points  thus 
suggested. 

Methods  of  Refutation 

It  must  not  be  presumed  that  refutation  is  a  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  kind  of  argumentation.     To  refute 

1  Lectures  on  Rhetoric  and  Oratory,  Vol.  II,  pp.  90-91. 


Refutation  255 

demands  just  as  thorough  a  mastery  of  the  general 
principles  of  handling  evidence  and  arguments,  as  is 
needed  for  positive  demonstration.  But,  in  addition 
to  all  these  things,  there  are  certain  peculiar  methods 
of  arranging  and  presenting  the  materials  of  destruc- 
tive proof. 

(i)   State  clearly  the  argument  to  be  answered. 

Before  taking  up  any  of  the  particular  methods 
there  is  one  principle  of  refutation  that  is  noteworthy. 
Always  make  perfectly  clear  to  the  audience  or 
reader,  just  what  is  the  point  that  is  to  be  attacked. 
The  statement  to  which  objection  is  made  should 
almost  always  be  distinctly  stated  at  the  start,  and 
the  statement  should  be  supplemented,  while  the 
reply  is  being  presented,  by  whatever  explanations 
are  necessary,  in  order  to  make  evident  the  purposes 
and  results  of  the  answer.  It  must  be  made  clear 
that  there  are  two  opposing  arguments  which  directly 
meet,  and  that  one  overthrows  the  other.  The  force 
of  refutation  is  destructive,  and  it  cannot  achieve  its 
full  effect  unless  the  audience  understands  just  what 
is  to  be  destroyed,  and  just  how  the  refutation  accom- 
plishes the  destruction. 

A  study  of  forensic  and  deliberative  oratory  shows 
the  painstaking  care  used  by  the  ablest  speakers  and 
writers.  The  following  is  an  example  of  Webster's 
method  in  forensic  refutation,  a  model  of  clearness  in 
introducing  refutation.  The  quotation  is  from  his 
speech  in  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders :  — 


256  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"Here  we  meet  the  opposite  arguments,  stated  on  dif- 
ferent occasions  in  different  terms,  but  usually  summed  up 
in  this,  that  the  law  itself  is  a  part  of  the  contract,  and 
therefore  cannot  impair  it.  What  does  it  mean  ?  Let  us 
seek  for  clear  ideas.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  law  gives 
any  particular  construction  to  the  terms  of  the  contract,  or 
that  it  makes  the  promise,  or  the  consideration,  or  the  time 
of  performance,  other  than  is  expressed  in  the  instrument 
itself.  It  can  only  mean  that  it  is  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of 
the  contract  or  understanding  of  the  parties,  that  the  con- 
tract itself  shall  be  enforced  by  such  laws  and  regulations 
respecting  remedy  and  for  the  enforcement  of  contracts  as 
are  in  being  in  the  State  where  it  is  made  at  the  time  of 
entering  into  it.  This  is  meant,  or  nothing  very  clearly 
intelligible  is  meant,  by  saying  the  law  is  part  of  the  con- 
tract. ... 

**  Against  this  we  contend  :  — 

"  I  St.  That,  if  the  proposition  were  true,  the  conse- 
quence would  not  follow. 

"  2d.  That  the  proposition  itself  cannot  be  main- 
tained."^ 

To  take  an  illustration  from  a  deliberative  oration : 
Webster,  in  replying  to  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Senate, 
on  the  question  of  the  protective  tariff,  divided  his 
speech  into  five  parts,  corresponding  to  the  five  main 
points  of  his  opponent.  The  following  are  the  sen- 
tences introductory  to  these  parts  respectively  :  — 

"  I.  In  treating  of  protection,  or  protective  duties,  the 
first  proposition  of  the  honorable  member  is,  that  all  duties 
laid  on  imports  really  fall  on  exports  ;  that  they  are  a  toll 
paid  for  going  to  market. 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VT,  p.  29.  Little,  Brown  and 
Co.,  Boston,  1 85 1. 


Refutation  257 

"  II.  Another  opinion  of  the  honorable  member  is,  that 
increased  production  brings  about  expansion  of  the  cur- 
rency, and  that  such  increase  makes  a  further  increase 
necessary.  His  idea  is,  that,  if  some  goods  are  manufac- 
tured at  home,  less  will  be  imported ;  if  less  goods  are 
imported,  the  amount  of  exports  still  keeping  up,  the 
whole  export  being  thus  paid  for  by  the  import,  specie 
must  be  brought  to  settle  the  balance ;  that  this  increase 
of  specie  gives  new  powers  to  the  banks  to  discount ;  that 
the  banks  thereupon  make  large  issues,  till  the  mass  of 
currency  becomes  redundant  and  swollen ;  that  this  swollen 
currency  augments  the  price  of  articles  of  our  own  manu- 
facture, and  makes  it  necessary  to  raise  prices  still  higher, 
and  this  creates  a  demand  for  the  imposition  of  new  duties. 
This,  as  I  understand  it,  is  the  honorable  member's  train 
of  thought. 

"  III.  There  is  a  third  general  idea  of  the  honorable 
gentlemen,  upon  which  I  would  make  a  few  observations. 
It  is,  that  the  South  and  West  are  the  great  consumers  of 
the  products  of  the  manufactures  of  the  North  and  East ; 
that  the  capacity  of  the  South  to  consume  depends  on  her 
great  staples ;  and  that  the  sale  of  these  depends  mainly 
on  a  foreign  market. 

''  IV.  A  fourth  sentiment  of  the  honorable  member  is, 
that  the  removal  of  all  duties  increases  the  exportation  of 
articles  manufactured  at  home. 

"  V.  Finally,  the  honorable  member  is  of  opinion  that 
the  whole  system  of  protection  was  prostrated,  and  is  pros- 
trated, cut  up,  root  and  branch,  and  exterminated  forever, 
by  the  State  interposition  of  South  Carolina."^ 

(2)   Exposing  any  fallacy. 

The  first  method  that  suggests  itself  for  the  over- 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  528-538.  Little, 
Brown  and  Co.,  Boston,  1856. 


258  Argumentation  and  Debate 

throw  of  opposing  proof  is  to  point  out,  by  an  expla- 
nation, any  fallacy  in  the  arguments,  or  any  weakness 
in  the  evidence  of  the  other  side.  The  ways  of 
detecting  flaws  in  evidence  and  errors  in  arguments, 
have  already  been  shown.  We  have  also  noted  sev- 
eral of  the  more  common  general  fallacies,  such  as 
begging  the  question  and  arguing  beside  the  point. 
The  two  last-mentioned  fallacies  are  frequently  en- 
countered, and  some  forceful  method  of  exposing  the 
error  is  a  good  weapon  to  have  ready  at  hand.  To 
lay  bare  any  such  defects  in  the  processes  of  an 
opponent's  proof  is,  of  course,  to  refute  him. 

(3)   Rediictio  ad  absurdum. 

One  of  the  most  commonly  used  methods  of  proof 
peculiar  to  refutation  is  that  of  reducing  an  argument 
to  an  absurdity,  or,  as  it  is  named,  the  rediictio  ad 
absurdum.  The  refuter  adopts  for  the  moment  the 
line  of  argument  of  his  opponent ;  then,  by  carrying 
it  out  to  its  logical  conclusion,  shows  that  it  results  in 
an  absurdity.  For  example,  A  contends  that  women 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  vote,  because,  with  respect  to 
political  rights,  "all  men  are  free  and  equal."  B 
answers  him  by  showing  that  the  same  argument 
carried  out  to  its  logical  conclusion  would  prove  that 
all  criminals,  idiots,  and  minors  should  have  the  right 
of  suffrage,  thus  reducing  the  argument  to  a  mani- 
festly absurd  proposition. 

This  method  is  effective  because  of  its  simplicity 
and  directness ;  it  also  has  in  it  an  element  of  ridicule 


Refutation  259 

that  is  persuasive  against  an  opponent.  William 
Ellery  Channing,  in  a  reply  to  Henry  Clay  on  the 
slavery  question,  used  this  method  as  follows  :• — 

"  But  this  property,  we  are  told,  is  not  to  be  questioned 
on  account  of  its  long  duration.  '  Two  hundred  years  of 
legislation  have  sanctioned  and  sanctified  negro  slaves  as 
property.'  Nothing  but  respect  for  the  speaker  could 
repress  criticism  on  this  unhappy  phraseology.  We  will 
trust  it  escaped  him  without  thought.  But  to  confine  our- 
selves to  the  argument  from  duration  ;  how  obvious  the 
reply !  Is  injustice  changed  into  justice  by  the  practice 
of  ages  ?  Is  my  victim  made  a  righteous  prey  because  I 
have  bowed  him  to  the  earth  till  he  cannot  rise  ?  For 
more  than  two  hundred  years  heretics  were  burned,  and 
not  by  mobs,  not  by  Lynch  law,  but  by  the  decrees  of 
councils,  at  the  instigation  of  theologians,  and  with  the 
sanction  of  the  laws  and  religions  of  nations  ;  and  was  this 
a  reason  for  keeping  up  the  fires,  that  they  had  burned 
two  hundred  years  ?  In  the  Eastern  world,  successive 
despots,  not  for  two  hundred  years,  but  for  twice  two 
thousand,  have  claimed  the  right  of  life  and  death  over 
millions,  and,  with  no  law  but  their  own  will,  have  be- 
headed, bowstrung,  starved,  tortured  unhappy  men  with- 
out number  who  have  incurred  their  wrath ;  and  does  the 
lapse  of  so  many  centuries  sanctify  murder  and  ferocious 
power 


? " 


Again :  — 

"  But  the  great  argument  remains.  It  is  said  that  this 
property  must  not  be  questioned,  because  it  is  established 
by  law.  '  That  is  property  which  the  law  declares  to  be 
property.'^     Thus  human  law  is  made  supreme,  decisive, 

1  The  italics  are  by  Mr.  Qay. 


26o  Argumentation  and  Debate 

in  a  question  of  morals.  Thus  the  idea  of  an  eternal, 
immutable  justice  is  set  at  naught.  Thus  the  great  rule 
of  human  life  is  made  to  be  the  ordinance  of  interested 
men.  But  there  is  a  higher  tribunal,  a  throne  of  equal 
justice,  immovable  by  the  conspiracy  of  all  human  legisla- 
tures. '  That  is  property  which  the  law  declares  to  be 
property.'  Then  the  laws  have  only  to  declare  you,  or 
me,  or  Mr.  Clay,  to  be  property,  and  we  become  chattels 
and  are  bound  to  bear  the  yoke !  Does  not  even  man's 
moral  nature  repel  this  doctrine  too  intuitively  to  leave 
time  or  need  for  argument?  "^ 

(4)   Dilemma. 

The  dilemma  is  one  of  the  oldest  of  all  known 
rhetorical  forms.  As  a  method  of  refutation,  it  con- 
sists in  reducing  an  issue  to  an  alternative,  and  then 
showing  that  both  members  of  the  alternative  are 
untenable.  These  two  members  are  called  the  "  horns 
of  the  dilemma."  The  refuter  says  in  substance : 
"  Now,  with  respect  to  this  point  at  issue,  there  are 
two  and  only  two  possibilities,  viz.,  A  and  B.  But 
A  is  not  true,  and  B  is  not  true ;  consequently  your 
contention  falls."  In  order  to  make  the  dilemma 
conclusive,  obviously  two  things  are  necessary. 
{a^  The  two  horns  of  the  dilemma  must  include  all 
the  possibilities  in  the  case,  i,e.  the  alternative  must 
be  exact.  {U)  Both  members  of  the  alternative  must 
be  destroyed. 

James  Wilson,  speaking  in  the  convention  for  the 

1  The  Works  of  William  E.  Channing,  D.D.,  Vol.  V,  pp.  48-49. 
G.  G.  Channing,  Boston,  1846. 


Reftitation  26 1 

province  of  Pennsylvania,  in  vindication  of  the  colo- 
nies, January,  1775,  used  the  dilemma  as  follows:  — 

"  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  say  that  the  persons  who 
allege  that  those  employed  to  alter  the  charter  and  con- 
stitution of  Massachusetts  Bay  act  by  virtue  of  a  commis- 
sion from  his  majesty  for  that  purpose,  speak  improperly, 
and  contrary  to  the  truth  of  the  case.  I  say  they  do  not 
act  by  virtue  of  such  commission ;  I  say  it  is  impossible 
they  can  act  by  virtue  of  such  a  commission.  What  is 
called  a  commission  either  contains  particular  directions 
for  the  purpose  mentioned,  or  it  contains  no  such  particu- 
lar directions.  In  either  case  can  those,  who  act  for  that 
purpose,  act  by  virtue  of  a  commission  ?  In  one  case, 
what  is  called  a  commission  is  void ;  it  has  no  legal  exist- 
ence ;  it  can  communicate  no  authority.  In  the  other 
case,  it  extends  not  to  the  purpose  mentioned.  The  lat- 
ter point  is  too  plain  to  be  insisted  on :  I  [will]  prove  the 
former."^ 

Jeremiah  S.  Black,  in  defence  of  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury,  thus  attacked  the  contention  of  his  oppo- 
nents, which  was  that  the  law  of  nations  was  binding 
in  the  trial  of  the  cause  in  question  :  — 

''  Our  friends  on  the  other  side  are  quite  conscious  that 
when  they  deny  the  binding  obligation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion they  must  put  some  other  system  of  law  in  its  place. 
Their  brief  gives  us  notice  that,  while  the  Constitution, 
and  the  acts  of  Congress,  and  Magna  Charta^  and  the 
common  law,  and  all  the  rules  of  natural  justice  shall  re- 
main under  foot,  they  will  try  American  citizens  according 
to  the  law  of  nations !    But  the  law  of  nations  takes  no 

1"  Eloquence  of  the  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  56.  E.  and  H. 
Clark,  Middletown,  Conn.,  1827. 


262  Ai'gumentation  aiid  Debate 

notice  of  the  subject.  If  that  system  did  contain  a  special 
provision  that  a  government  might  hang  one  of  its  own 
citizens  without  a  judge  or  jury,  it  would  still  be  compe- 
tent for  the  American  people  to  say,  as  they  have  said, 
that  no  such  thing  should  ever  be  done  here.  That  is  my 
answer  to  the  law  of  nations."^ 

Sometimes  the  possibilities  vi^ith  respect  to  the  point 
in  issue  cannot  be  reduced  to  two.  There  may  be  a 
choice  offered  of  any  one  of  three  or  more  possible 
conditions,  or  courses  of  action.  In  such  a  case,  to 
state  the  issue  in  the  form  of  a  dilemma,  presenting 
a  single  alternative,  would  not  be  an  exact  division, 
and  so  would  be  fallacious  ;  to  be  truthful  it  is  always 
necessary  to  state  all  the  possibilities  of  choice,  what- 
ever their  number.  When  more  than  two  possibili- 
ties are  to  be  considered,  the  method  is,  properly 
speaking,  not  a  dilemma ;  but  the  modus  operandi  is 
similar.  Webster,  in  his  argument  in  the  case  of  the 
Providence  Railroad  Co.  vs.  City  of  Boston,  made  a 
division  into  three  possibilities.  Mr.  Webster  is  here 
contending  against  the  proposition  that  a  certain  street 
or  piece  of  land  is  a  public  highway :  — 

"  If  this  street,  or  land,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  has 
become  and  now  is  a  public  highway,  it  must  have  become 
so  in  one  of  three  ways,  and  to  these  points  I  particularly 
call  your  honors'  attention. 

"  I  St.  It  must  either  have  become  a  highway  by  having 
been  regularly  laid  out  according  to  usage  and  law ;  or 

"2d.    By  dedication  as  such  by  those  having  the  power 

1  "  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,"  p.  507. 


Refutation  263 

to  dedicate  it,  and  acceptance  and  adoption  so  far  as  they 
are  required ;  or 

"•  3d.  As  a  highway  by  long  user,  without  the  existence 
of  proof  of  any  original  laying  out,  or  dedication. 

"It  is  not  pretended  by  any  one  that  the  land  in  question 
is  a  highway,  upon  the  last  of  these  grounds.  I  shall 
therefore  confine  myself  to  the  consideration  of  the  other 
two  questions ;  namely, '  Was  there  ever  a  formal  and  regular 
laying  out  of  a  street  here  ?  or  was  there  ever  a  regular  and 
sufficient  dedication  and  acceptance  ?  '  "  ^ 

(5)  Residues. 

The  method  of  residues,  like  that  of  the  dilemma, 
is  founded  upon  a  division  of  the  point  in  question 
into  parts.  The  difference  is,  that  in  the  dilemma  all 
the  parts  are  destroyed,  whereas,  in  the  method  of 
residues,  one  of  the  parts  is  left  standing.  By  the 
method  of  residues,  the  matter  in  dispute  is  divided 
into  two  or  more  sections,  which  include  all  the  pos- 
sibilities in  the  case  ;  then  all  but  one  of  these  are 
demolished,  the  one  left  standing  being  the  aspect 
of  the  issue  which  the  refuter  wishes  to  establish. 
"  There  are,"  says  the  refuter,  "  three  possibilities, 
A,  B,  and  C.  But  A  and  B  are  false,  consequently 
the  presumption  is  that  C  is  true."  This  method  is 
not,  strictly  speaking,  a  method  of  refuting.  It  is 
rather  a  method  of  using  refutation  :  the  ultimate 
purpose  of  the  speaker  or  writer  is  not  destructive, 
but  constructive ;  he  destroys  some  of  the  parts  into 

iThe  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  186.     Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  185 1. 


2.64  Argiimentatio7i  and  Debate 

which  he  divides  the  question,  in  order  that  he  may 
establish  the  remaining  part.  He  uses  refutation  to 
accomplish  his  end  ;  but  the  end  itself  is  constructive 
proof. 

The  first  requisite  in  using  the  method  of  resi- 
dues is,  that  the  division  of  the  whole  into  parts 
shall  be  exhaustive.  The  strength  of  the  method 
depends  entirely  upon  the  assumption,  that  all  the 
possibiHties  in  the  case  are  destroyed  save  one.  If, 
then,  the  disputant  omits,  in  his  division,  to  mention 
one  of  the  possibilities,  he  has  proved  nothing,  for  it 
still  remains  uncertain  which  possibility  is  true,  — 
the  one  he  seeks  to  establish  or  the  one  he  failed  to 
mention.  Again,  in  order  to  make  the  work  com- 
plete, it  is  necessary  that  the  residuary  part  be 
enforced  by  positive  demonstration.  The  refuting 
of  all  but  one  of  the  possibilities,  leaves  a  presump- 
tion that  the  remaining  possibility  is  true ;  but  there 
may  well  be  a  suspicion  that  even  this  last  part  too 
is  false,  or  that  there  is  some  fallacy  in  the  division. 
Consequently,  to  be  at  all  convincing  the  residuary 
part  must  be  enforced  by  positive  proof. 

There  is  no  better  example  of  the  use  of  the  method 
of  residues,  than  that  found  in  Thomas  H.  Huxley's 
Lectures  on  Evolution,  delivered  in  New  York  in 
1876.  Professor  Huxley  was  here  endeavoring  to 
establish  the  theory  of  evolution,  as  the  true  theory 
respecting  the  genesis  and  history  of  the  universe. 
In  his  first  lecture  he  divided  the  question  into  three 
possible  hypotheses  as  follows  :' — 


Refutation  265 

''  So  far  as  I  know,  there  are  only  three  hypotheses 
which  ever  have  been  entertained,  or  which  well  can  be 
entertained,  respecting  the  past  history  of  Nature.  I  will, 
in  the  first  place,  state  the  hypotheses,  and  then  I  will 
consider  what  evidence  bearing  upon  them  is  in  our  posses- 
sion, and  by  what  light  of  criticism  that  evidence  is  to  be 
interpreted. 

"  Upon  the  first  hypothesis,  the  assumption  is,  that  phe- 
nomena of  Nature  similar  to  those  exhibited  by  the  present 
world  have  always  existed ;  in  other  words,  that  the  universe 
has  existed  from  all  eternity  in  what  may  be  broadly  termed 
its  present  condition. 

"  The  second  hypothesis  is,  that  the  present  state  of  things 
has  had  only  a  limited  duration  ;  and  that,  at  some  period 
in  the  past,  a  condition  of  the  world,  essentially  similar  to 
that  which  we  now  know,  came  into  existence,  without  any 
precedent  condition  from  which  it  could  have  naturally 
proceeded.  The  assumption  that  successive  states  of 
Nature  have  arisen,  each  without  any  relation  of  natural 
causation  to  an  antecedent  state,  is  a  mere  modification 
of  this  second  hypothesis. 

"  The  third  hypothesis  also  assumes  that  the  present  state 
of  things  has  had  but  a  limited  duration  ;  but  it  supposes 
that  this  state  has  been  evolved  by  a  natural  process  from 
an  antecedent  state,  and  that  from  another,  and  so  on  ; 
and,  on  this  hypothesis,  the  attempt  to  assign  any  limit  to 
the  series  of  past  changes  is,  usually,  given  up."^ 

He  then  proceeded,  in  his  series  of  lectures,  to 
overthrow  the  first  two  hypotheses,  leaving  the  third 
—  the  theory  of  evolution  —  standing  as  the  residuary 
part,  and  finally  he  supported  this  theory  by  positive 
proof  of  its  probability. 

^  Popular  Science  Monthly^  Vol.  X,  p.  44. 


2(56  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Burke,  in  his  speech  on  "  ConciHation  with  America," 
used  the  method  of  residues.     He  began  :  — 

"  Sir,  if  I  were  capable  of  engaging  you  to  an  equal 
attention,  I  would  state,  that  as  far  as  I  am  capable  of 
discerning,  there  are  but  three  ways  of  proceeding  relative 
to  this  stubborn  Spirit  which  prevails  in  your  Colonies,  and 
disturbs  your  Government.  These  are,  to  change  that 
Spirit,  as  inconvenient,  by  removing  the  Causes.  To 
prosecute  it  as  criminal.  Or,  to  comply  with  it  as  neces- 
sary. I  would  not  be  guilty  of  an  imperfect  enumeration  ; 
I  can  think  of  but  these  three.  Another  has  indeed  been 
started,  that  of  giving  up  the  Colonies  ;  but  it  met  so  slight 
a  reception  that  I  do  not  think  myself  obliged  to  dwell 
a  great  while  upon  it.  It  is  nothing  but  a  little  sally 
of  anger,  like  the  frowardness  of  peevish  children,  who, 
when  they  cannot  get  all  they  would  have,  are  resolved  to 
take  nothing." 

He  then  considered  the  first  two  ways  at  length 
and  proved  them  impracticable,  and  concluded  :  — 

*'  If  then  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  Spirit  of 
American  Liberty  be,  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather 
entirely,  impracticable  ;  if  the  ideas  of  Criminal  Process 
be  inapplicable,  or  if  applicable  are  in  the  highest  degree 
inexpedient,  what  way  yet  remains  ?  No  way  is  open,  but 
the  third  and  last,  to  comply  with  the  American  Spirit  as 
necessary ;  or,  if  you  please,  to  submit  to  it  as  a  necessary 
Evil." 

(6)  Showing  an  opponent' s  proof  to  be  a  proof  of  your 
own  side  of  the  case. 

To  turn  the  argument  of  an  opponent  against  him 
is  not  often  possible.  But  circumstances  sometimes 
give  the  opportunity.     A  piece  of  testimony  may  be 


Refutation  267 

used  by  a  writer,  when  he  has  not  fully  considered 
all  the  interpretations  that  may  be  put  upon  it.  It 
not  infrequently  happens  that  evidence,  or  an  argu- 
ment, is  introduced  to  give  support  to  some  particular 
point,  and,  in  its  bearing  on  that  phase  of  the  question, 
the  evidence  may  be  favorable  to  the  speaker  or  writer 
that  introduces  it ;  but  as  the  discussion  proceeds,  it 
may  turn  out  that,  with  respect  to  some  other  phase 
of  the  question,  the  evidence  or  the  argument  may  be 
interpreted  in  another  way,  adversely  to  its  inventor. 
The  effect  of  such  an  unexpected  turn  of  affairs  is 
obvious;  the  opponent  is  "hoist  with  his  own  petard." 
The  very  manner  of  introducing  the  proof  adds  to  its 
effectiveness.  Webster,  in  the  Girard  Will  Case,  used 
this  method  in  attacking  one  of  the  proofs  of  the 
defendants  :  — 

"  The  arguments  of  my  learned  friend,  may  it  please 
your  honors,  in  relation  to  the  Jewish  laws  as  tolerated 
by  the  statutes,  go  to  maintain  my  very  proposition ;  that 
is,  that  no  school  for  the  instruction  of  youth  in  any  system 
which  is  in  any  way  derogatory  to  the  Christain  religion, 
or  for  the  teaching  of  doctrines  that  are  in  any  way  con- 
trary to  the  Christian  religion,  is,  or  ever  was,  regarded  as 
a  charity  by  the  courts.  It  is  true  that  the  statutes  of 
Toleration  regarded  a  devise  for  the  maintenance  of  poor 
Jewish  children,  to  give  them  food  and  raiment  and  lodg- 
ing, as  a  charity.  But  a  devise  for  the  teaching  of  the 
Jewish  religion  to  poor  children,  that  should  come  into  the 
Court  of  Chancery,  would  not  be  regarded  as  a  charity,  or 
entitled  to  any  peculiar  privileges  from  the  court."  ^ 

1  The  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  VI,  p.  i66.  Little,  Brown 
and  Co.,  Boston,  1851. 


268  Argumentation  and  Debate 

(7)   Refntation  should  be  followed  by  positive  proof . 

With  respect  to  the  method  of  handling  refutation, 
the  final  word  of  advice  is,  to  follow  up  refutation 
with  positive  proof.  This  suggestion  is  of  a  general 
nature  and  is  open  to  exceptions.  But  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  refutation  is  destructive ;  it  demolishes, 
but  does  not  build  up.  To  make  men  act  or  thor- 
oughly believe,  it  is  not  enough  to  make  them  see 
there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  convinced ; 
they  must  be  made  to  see  that  there  is  a  positive 
reason  why  they  should  be  convinced.  Consequently, 
pure  refutation  is  weak  and  lacks  the  strongest  ele- 
ments of  conviction ;  it  is  a  necessary  help,  but  is 
not  sufficient  in  itself.  It  is,  therefore,  generally  an 
anticlimax  to  place  refutation  at  the  end  of  the  dis- 
cussion, or  at  the  end  of  any  important  division  of 
the  argument.  Positive  proof  rather  than  refutation 
should  be  given  the  emphatic  places. 

This  leads  to  the  matter  of  the  arrangement  of 
refutation.  With  respect  to  the  strength  and  the 
weakness  of  the  points  of  refutation,  the  same  rules 
apply  as  in  positive  proof :  the  emphatic  places  are 
the  beginning  and  the  end.  If,  then,  the  answer  to 
be  made  is  strong,  it  may  well  be  put  first  or  toward 
the  last.  Weaker  answers  are  best  hidden  in  the 
middle.  However,  it  often  happens  that  an  oppo- 
nent makes  a  point  or  presents  some  idea,  which  must 
be  overthrown  before  the  speaker  or  writer  can  pro- 
ceed with  his  own  proof.  In  such  circumstances, 
clearly  the  answer  to  the  point  must  be  made  at  the 


RefiLtation  269 

very  beginning.  Doubt  often  arises  as  to  whether  it 
is  best  to  make  the  answer  a  distinct  point  in  the  dis- 
cussion, or  to  introduce  it  as  merely  an  incident  to 
some  other  point.  This  depends  upon  the  importance 
of  the  argument  to  be  answered,  and  so  is  a  question 
of  personal  judgment  in  each  particular  case.  In 
general,  however,  any  answer  to  what  would  corre- 
spond to  a  "  subhead  "  in  an  opponent's  brief,  should 
rarely  be  made  a  main  head  in  refutation.  Such 
lesser  arguments  of  an  opponent  are  best  answered, 
in  connection  with  those  parts  of  one's  own  proof 
with  which  they  are  naturally  associated ;  they  should 
be  considered  wherever  they  happen  to  arise  in  the 
course  of  one's  own  argument.  It  is  true  in  gen- 
eral that,  with  the  exception  of  the  most  vital  of  the 
proofs  of  the  opposition,  refutation  is  best  made  as 
the  occasion  for  the  answers  arises  in  the  course  of 
one's  own  demonstration.  But  if  the  answer  to  an 
opponent's  argument  is,  from  the  circumstances,  of 
such  importance  as  to  make  any  large  part  of  the 
question  depend  upon  it,  there  should  be  no  hesitation 
in  making  it  one  of  the  main  issues  of  the  proof,  and 
emphasizing  it  as  such. 

Finally,  it  should  never  be  forgotten  that  arrange- 
ment of  the  materials  is  just  as  necessary  in  refuta- 
tion as  in  positive  proof.  A  rambling,  incoherent, 
formless  presentation  is  just  as  fatal  to  efficiency  in 
destructive  as  in  constructive  argument.  Just  as  in 
the  arrangement  of  all  other  materials,  the  "  main 
head  "  must  be  made  to  stand  out  clear  and  emphatic, 


2/0  Argumentation  and  Debate 

and  around  it  the  lesser  materials  must  be  grouped  in 
subordination.  It  is  a  common  failing  of  inexperi- 
enced debaters,  however  accurate  and  firm  they  may- 
be elsewhere,  to  become  careless  in  refutation,  for- 
getting many  of  the  principles  of  arrangement  and 
presentation.  These  principles  apply  equally  to  all 
kinds  of  proof,  whether  positive  or  negative. 


PART    II 
DEBATE 


CHAPTER   I 

DEBATE 

In  the  preceding  chapters  the  principles  that  have 
been  set  forth  apply  equally  to  written  and  to  spoken 
argumentation.  But  in  that  form  of  discussion  com- 
monly known  as  debate,  which  consists  in  a  direct 
oral  contest  between  two  opposing  sides,  on  a  definite 
question  at  a  definite  time,  some  of  these  principles 
must  undergo  slight  adaptations,  and  to  them  must 
be  added  other  new  principles. 

A  good  argumentative  essayist  is  not  necessarily 
a  good  debater,  any  more  than  a  good  writer  is  nec- 
essarily a  good  speaker.  To  begin  with,  a  debater 
must  know  something  of  the  arts  of  public  speech ; 
he  may  not  be  positively  eloquent,  but  he  must  know 
how  to  express  himself  before  an  audience  with  a 
reasonable  degree  of  ease  and  force.  But  elocution 
is  not  all.  The  debater,  in  addition  to  being  an 
orator,  must  be  something  of  a  general.  In  polemic 
warfare  there  are  ambuscades,  unexpected  reenforce- 
ments  for  the  enemy,  and  critical  situations  of  various 
kinds  which  cannot  be  foreseen.  To  meet  these  con- 
tingencies and  master  them  demands  a  clear  head, 
quick  judgment,  firm  decision,  and  a  certain  amount  of 
bold  self-confidence.  There  is,  moreover,  a  strategy 
T  273 


274  Argumentation  and  Debate 

of  debate  which  must  be  learned  by  study  and  expe- 
rience. How  to  open  the  battle,  when  to  use  light 
cavalry  and  when  to  use  artillery,  when  to  attack, 
when  to  give  way,  how  to  plan  an  ambuscade,  how 
to  retreat  —  a  knowledge  of  these  things  belongs  no 
less  to  the  debater  than  to  the  military  commander. 

Finally,  the  work  of  preparation  for  debate  is  dif- 
ferent in  many  ways  from  that  for  written  disputation. 
In  preHminary  reading,  attention  must  be  given  to 
matters  that  might  under  other  conditions  safely  be 
neglected.  In  selecting  evidence,  the  choice  must 
often  be  determined  by  the  special  conditions ;  evi- 
dence that  is  good  in  an  essay,  is  often  ineffective  in 
spoken  argument.  In  drawing  a  brief,  the  choice  of 
the  main  headings  and  the  arrangement  of  the  points 
must  be  planned,  with  regard  to  the  exigencies  and 
the  strategy  of  the  contest.  Then,  also,  preparation 
for  the  refutation  of  an  opponent's  arguments  must 
be  much  more  thorough. 

To  attempt  to  make  fixed  and  inexorable  rules  for 
many  of  these  processes  mentioned  above  would  be 
a  mistake ;  uniformity  of  method  in  debating  is  un- 
desirable, as  well  as  impossible.  Consequently,  the 
principles  that  follow  are  general  rather  than  specific. 
Further,  it  should  be  understood  that  debate  is  not  a 
form  of  argumentation  entirely  separate  and  distinct 
from  other  forms.  Every  principle  enunciated  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  on  argumentation  in  general,  has 
full  force  in  debate.  The  suggestions  given  here  are 
merely  additional. 


Debate 


I.    Preliminary  Reading 


275 


With  respect  to  preliminary  reading,  there  are  but 
two  things  to  be  emphasized  in  addition  to  what  has 
already  been  said  in  Chapter  IV. 

A,  Particular  study  needs  to  be  given  to  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  question. 

B.  Especial  attention  needs  to  be  given  to  the 
study  of  the  broad,  general  principles  of  the  problem 
to  be  discussed. 

A.  In  debate,  refutation  is  no  less  important  than 
positive  proof ;  in  intercollegiate  debates  it  is  most 
often  the  rebuttal  that  is  decisive;  in  any  discussion 
it  is  the  "last  speech"  that  is  coveted;  Webster's 
famous  Reply  to  Hayne  was  almost  pure  refutation. 
And  it  is  very  seldom  that  successful  refutation  is 
impromptu.  An  anecdote  in  point  is  told  concerning 
one  of  the  most  brilliant  advocates  of  the  English 
bar.  This  lawyer  was  one  day  arguing  an  important 
case  before  one  of  the  highest  tribunals  of  the  coun- 
try. In  the  course  of  the  trial  he  was  made  the 
object  of  an  attack,  personal  and  political  in  nature, 
from  his  opponent,  the  attorney  for  the  prosecution. 
The  attack  was  bitter,  but  forcible  and  persuasive. 
It  seemed  to  be  unexpected  by  any  one ;  the  court 
was  surprised,  but  manifestly  affected.  The  advo- 
cate arose  to  make  reply,  and  in  his  introduction, 
with  perfect  calmness  and  great  eloquence,  he  an- 
swered every  charge,  retrieved  the  lost  favor  of  the 
court,  and  overpowered  his  assailant  with  an  irresisti- 


2/6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

ble  invective.  After  this  trial  was  finished,  one  of 
the  judges  —  a  personal  friend  —  expressed  his  sur- 
prise and  admiration  at  the  extraordinary  eloquence 
of  the  reply,  declaring  the  retort  to  be  one  of  the 
most  brilliant  passages  ever  heard  in  an  English  court 
of  law,  and  added,  that  he  had  never  believed  such 
impromptu  oratory  to  be  within  the  limits  of  human 
powers.  In  answer  to  these  congratulations,  the 
advocate  invited  the  justice  to  accompany  him  to  his 
law  chambers.  Entering  his  library,  he  walked  to  a 
desk,  opened  a  drawer,  and  took  from  it  a  manu- 
script ;  it  was  his  speech  of  the  morning  written  out 
in  full,  nearly  word  for  word  as  he  had  delivered  it. 
He  had  foreseen  a  contingency  that  nobody  else  had 
expected  or  deemed  possible,  and  had  made  ready  to 
meet  the  situation.  He  won  because  he  was  prepared. 
Daniel  Webster  declared  that  all  the  material  of 
his  Reply  to  Hayne  had  been  gathering,  and  waiting 
in  his  desk  for  months  before  the  debate.  Speaking 
of  Senator  Hayne,  he  said  to  a  friend :  "  If  he  had 
tried  to  make  a  speech  to  fit  my  notes,  he  could  not 
have  hit  it  better.  No  man  is  ever  inspired  with  the 
occasion ;  I  never  was."  Mere  words  and  gestures 
do  not  make  refutation  any  more  than  they  make 
positive  proof.  There  must  be  just  as  much  evidence 
in  the  one  as  in  the  other.  Refutation  demands  as 
careful  a  choice  of  weapons  and  as  accurate  a  method 
of  handling  them  as  any  other  kind  of  proof.  Inven- 
tion, selection,  and  arrangement  demand  as  much 
preliminary  planning  here,  as  elsewhere. 


Debate  277 

Clearly,  the  primary  necessity  in  preparing  refuta- 
tion is  to  know  just  what  points  we  shall  be  called 
upon  to  answer ;  we  must  have  a  clear  and  accurate 
understanding  of  the  points  our  opponents 'need  to 
establish,  and  of  the  methods  they  may  adopt  in  the 
attempt.  Furthermore,  it  is  desirable  to  know  the 
other  side  of  the  case  in  order  wisely  to  prepare  our 
own  positive  proof.  Would  any  capable  general  ever 
lay  the  plans  for  an  attack  without  first  considering 
the  position  of  his  enemy,  his  location,  his  points  of 
strength  and  weakness.-*  As  we  shall  see  more 
clearly  later,  the  selecting  of  the  main  heads  of  a 
brief  in  debate,  depends  very  largely  upon  what  the 
opposition  may  be  able  to  "do  about  it."  Those 
points  must  be  chosen  for  emphasis,  that  will  hit 
hardest  and  straightest  at  the  necessary  proof  of  the 
other  side ;  and  at  the  same  time  we  must  remember 
that  these  main  heads  will  surely  be  attacked,  and 
we  must  take  up  a  position  that  is  defensible  against 
assault.  All  this  means  a  study  and  comparison  of 
the  two  sides  of  the  question,  so  as  to  find  out  what 
arguments  need  to  be  attacked,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  what  statement  of  one's  own  arguments  will 
best  stand  defensible  against  the  other  side. 

B.  But  it  is  rarely  possible  to  foresee  every  argu- 
ment that  an  opponent  may  advance.  No  two  per- 
sons reason  just  alike :  an  opponent  may  well  look 
at  the  question  from  some  peculiar  standpoint,  or,  as 
more  often  happens,  he  may  plan  a  surprise.  Then, 
too,  there  are  many  minor  questions  that  are  raised 


2/8  Argumentation  arid  Debate 

in  such  a  discussion,  which  it  is  hardly  worth  while 
trying  to  anticipate,  or  which  escape  notice  in  prepa- 
ration. Commonly,  these  minor  points  are  best  left 
unanswered  ;  but  sometimes  circumstances  make  them 
worth  notice.  Whatever  the  reason,  it  is  certain  that 
all  the  incidents  of  a  debate  cannot  be  foreseen ;  we 
must  always  expect  the  unexpected.  A  successful 
debater  must  always  be  ready  to  meet  strange  situa- 
tions, and  to  manufacture  more  or  less  of  refutation 
and  of  proof  on  the  scene  of  action. 

Now  a  disputant  who  has  read  only  on  those 
phases  of  the  question  that  are  of  interest  to  him,  or 
who  undertakes  only  those  parts  of  the  discussion 
that  he  treats  in  his  own  proof,  is  helpless  in  such 
circumstances.  He  has  no  resources  to  draw  upon. 
If  the  discussion  were  in  writing,  he  might  think  it 
over,  consult  new  authorities,  and  plan  his  answer; 
but  in  debate  there  is  no  such  opportunity.  He 
must  act  at  once.  He  is  in  the  predicament  of  a 
military  expedition  that  sets  out  on  a  long  campaign, 
with  a  day's  rations  and  no  base  of  supplies.  When 
a  debater  is  thus  surprised,  his  only  hope  must  lie  in 
having  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  question  as  a 
whole,  and  in  all  its  details,  a  knowledge  so  thorough 
as  to  be  ready  at  the  call  of  any  exigency.  Further- 
more, a  broad  understanding  of  the  foundations  and 
general  conditions  of  the  question  is  necessary,  in  or- 
der to  be  able  to  estimate  rightly,  the  force  and  bear- 
ing of  arguments  that  are  made  by  opponents.  A 
superficial   preparation   always   distorts  the    mental 


Debate  279 

vision  of  a  speaker,  and  confuses  in  his  mind  the  real 
issues  in  the  discussion.  But  debate  demands  an 
especially  clear  perception  and  quick  judgment  of 
what  is  vital :  the  debater  must  think  as  quickly  and 
act  as  decisively,  as  the  broker  on  the  exchange ;  su- 
perficial information  or  a  confused  understanding 
mean  as  sure  disaster  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
A  debater  in  action  must  be  able,  when  any  argu- 
ment or  any  evidence  is  brought  against  him,  to 
estimate  in  a  few  seconds  just  what  the  matter 
amounts  to,  how  it  is  related  to  his  own  case,  how 
much  to  say  about  it,  and  where  —  in  what  part  of 
his  speech  —  to  answer  it.  Here  a  stock  of  ready- 
made  arguments  becomes  useless.  Only  a  deep 
understanding  of  the  subject  to  the  very  bottom  can 
give  this  clear,  ready  insight,  and  this  steady  judg- 
ment that  alone  avails. 

These  two  foregoing  suggestions  are  especially  ap- 
plicable in  preparation  for  school  or  college  debates. 
There  the  limitations  of  time  are  very  stringent :  not 
the  smallest  fraction  of  a  minute  can  be  lost  in  con- 
fusion or  unnecessary  deliberation  ;  the  answer  must 
be  in  the  debater's  head  as  soon  as  the  argument  has 
left  his  opponent's  lips.  The  necessity  for  such  prepa- 
ration, important  everywhere,  is  here  intensified  by 
the  circumstances. 

II.    The  Introduction 

A.  In  debate,  to  have  the  first  speech  is  a  privi- 
lege.    This  privilege,  which  arises  from  the  influence 


28o  Arg.umentatio7i  and  Debate 

of  the  speech  upon  the  remainder  of  the  debate,  is 
twofold.  First,  the  speaker  has  an  opportunity  to 
make  the  first  impression  on  the  audience ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, he  has  an  opportunity  to  direct  the  course  of 
the  debate.  This,  then,  is  the  duty  of  a  speaker  open- 
ing a  debate,  whom,  for  convenience,  we  will  call 
the  "first  speaker  on  the  affirmative,"  viz.,  to  win 
sympathy  for  himself  or  his  view  of  the  subject,  and 
so  to  present  the  question  as  to  persuade  his  audi- 
ence that  his  method  of  treating  this  question  is  just 
and  sensible.  It  always  happens  in  such  a  contro- 
versy that  there  is  one  method  of  dividing  up  and 
discussing  the  question  that  is  advantageous  to  the 
affirmative,  and  another  method  that  is  advantageous 
to  the  negative.  Consequently,  to  force  an  opponent 
to  discuss  the  question  according  to  your  plan,  to  com- 
pel him  to  fight  you  on  your  own  grounds,  is  a  point 
won.  To  return  to  a  military  comparison,  in  war  it 
is  a  great  advantage  to  be  able  to  have  the  choice  of 
position;  and  this  advantage  generally  goes  to  the 
army  that  is  first  on  the  field.  An  adroit  and 
aggressive  first  speaker  can  so  explain  the  origin  and 
history  of  the  question,  and  so  present  the  issues,  as 
to  compel  his  opponent  to  accept  his  partition  of  the 
case,  on  penalty  of  losing  favor  with  the  audience, 
by  seeming  to  evade  the  issue. 

Rhetorically,  an  opening  speaker  should  use  a 
graceful  and  finished  diction.  His  general  tone 
should  be  conciliatory.  Above  all,  his  exposition 
should    be     lucid     and     interesting,    avoiding    fine 


Debate  28 1 

distinctions     and     technicalities    in    explaining    the 
question. 

The  duty  of  the  first  speaker  in  opposition,  who 
may  be  called  the  "  first  speaker  on  the  negative,"  is 
clear.  He  may  adopt  the  same  tone  and  rhetorical 
style  as  the  opening  speaker,  —  clear,  smooth,  and 
concihatory ;  or  he  may  take  a  different  attitude,  an 
attitude  of  open  belligerency  from  the  start.  But  he 
must,  whatever  the  method,  overthrow  the  influence 
of  his  opponent  who  has  introduced  the  debate. 
This  is  a  difficult  task,  calling  for  tact  and  aggressive 
force.  Sometimes  his  opponent  will  have  excited 
the  audience  against  him,  or  will  have  won  their  sym- 
pathy for  himself ;  then  the  speaker  must  counteract 
these  effects  by  the  use  of  sarcasm,  wit,  invective,  or 
whatever  resources  he  may  command.  If  the  open- 
ing speaker  has  seemed  to  establish  an  interpretation 
of  the  question  unfavorable  to  the  negative,  he  must 
offer  battle  at  the  very  start,  and  overthrow  this  in- 
terpretation by  showing  that  "  the  preceding  speaker 
has  falsified  history  and  distorted  the  facts,"  that  he 
has  "misrepresented  the  real  issues  in  hand,"  or  "un- 
fortunately failed  to  grasp  the  real  question,"  etc. 
Whatever  the  situation  he  finds  left  by  his  opponent, 
he  must  adapt  himself  to  it  and  change  it  to  his  own 
advantage.  He  must  take  matters  as  he  finds  them. 
At  such  a  time,  a  lecture  or  an  essay  is  worse  than 
nothing.  The  whole  value  of  the  introduction  of  a 
first  speaker  on  the  negative,  depends  on  its  adapta- 
tion to  the  circumstances. 


282  Argumentation  and  Debate 

An  illustration  directly  in  point  may  be  taken  from 
the  famous  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  of  1858.  The 
circumstances  of  this  controversy  are  well  known. 
It  occurred  during  the  most  intense  period  of  the 
slavery  struggle,  just  before  the  opening  of  the  War 
of  the  Rebellion.  The  country  was  stirred  to  a  pas- 
sionate interest,  by  the  fight  in  Congress  over  the 
admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union,  by  the  conflict 
between  slavery  and  anti-slavery  factions  in  that 
state,  and  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  just  declared 
by  the  Supreme  Court.  Lincoln  and  Douglas  were 
rival  candidates  for  the  Illinois  senatorship.  They 
were  recognized  representatives  of  the  two  great  po- 
litical factions  of  the  North,  and  the  whole  country 
soon  became  the  spectators  of  the  contest. 

In  brief,  the  events  immediately  preceding,  to 
which  frequent  reference  was  made  by  both  speakers, 
were  as  follows.  In  1820,  a  bill  was  passed  in  Con- 
gress containing  what  has  since  been  known  as  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  This  Compromise  declared 
that  thereafter  slavery  should  be  prohibited  north  of 
36°  30'  in  all  the  territory  acquired  from  France  by 
the  Louisiana  Purchase.  This  Compromise  was 
looked  upon  as  a  sacred  and  permanently  binding 
agreement,  between  the  Northern  and  the  Southern 
interests  in  the  country.  In  1854  Senator  Douglas, 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  reported  the  Ne- 
braska Bill,  in  one  section  of  which  this  Compromise 
was  declared  repealed,  because  "  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  sla- 


Debate  283 

very  in  the  states  and  territories  as  recognized  by  the 
Compromise  of  1850."  The  shock  to  the  country  was 
great.  The  acting  generation  had  come  to  look  upon 
the  Missouri  Compromise  as  sacred,  and  almost  a  part 
of  the  Constitution  itself.  A  long  and  hard-fought 
contest  followed,  the  Nebraska  Bill  being  finally 
forced  through  at  the  end  of  four  months.  The 
country  soon  saw,  beneath  all  disguises,  that  the 
measure  was  purely  a  Southern  proslavery  move, 
and  that  the  beginning  of  a  struggle  between  the 
slave  states  and  the  free  states  was  at  hand.  Then 
there  followed  immediately  the  struggle  between 
the  slavery  and  the  free-soil  factions,  for  the  control 
of  Kansas.  If  the  question  had  been  left  to  the  act- 
ual settlers,  slavery  would  have  been  excluded.  But 
the  neighboring  inhabitants  of  Missouri  invaded  the 
territory,  seized  the  polls,  and  fraudulently  elected 
a  proslavery  legislature  and  delegate  to  Congress. 

The  Whig  party  was  destroyed.  The  Republican 
party  came  into  being  and  nominated  their  first  presi- 
dential candidate,  John  C.  Fremont.  After  Mr. 
Buchanan's  inauguration,  the  effort  to  force  slavery 
on  Kansas  was  resumed  with  even  greater  zeal.  The 
Supreme  Court  came  to  the  aid  of  the  Democrats  by 
making  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  the  important  part 
of  which  was  the  assertion  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  territories. 

The  first  quotation  is  the  introduction  to  Senator 
Douglas's  opening  speech,  given  at  Chicago,  July  9, 
1858:  — 


284  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  Mr.  Chairman  and  Fellow-citizens  :  I  can  find 
no  language  which  can  adequately  express  my  profound 
gratitude  for  the  magnificent  welcome  which  you  have 
extended  to  me  on  this  occasion.  This  vast  sea  of  human 
faces  indicates  how  deep  an  interest  is  felt  by  our  people 
in  the  great  questions  which  agitate  the  public  mind,  and 
which  underlie  the  foundations  of  our  free  institutions.  A 
reception  like  this,  so  great  in  numbers  that  no  human 
voice  can  be  heard  to  its  countless  thousands,  —  so  enthu- 
siastic that  no  one  individual  can  be  the  object  of  such 
enthusiasm,  —  clearly  shows  that  there  is  some  great  prin- 
ciple which  sinks  deep  in  the  heart  of  the  masses,  and  in- 
volves the  rights  and  liberties  of  a  whole  people,  that  has 
brought  you  together  with  a  unanimity  and  a  cordiality 
never  before  excelled,  if,  indeed,  equalled  on  any  occa- 
sion. I  have  not  the  vanity  to  believe  that  it  is  any  per- 
sonal compliment  to  me. 

"  It  is  an  expression  of  your  devotion  to  that  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government  to  which  my  life  for  many  years 
past  has  been,  and  in  the  future  will  be,  devoted:  If  there 
is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred  than  all  others 
in  free  governments,  it  is  that  which  asserts  the  exclusive 
right  of  a  free  people  to  form  and  adopt  their  own  funda- 
mental law,  and  to  manage  and  regulate  their  own  internal 
affairs  and  domestic  institutions. 

"  When  I  found  an  effort  being  made  during  the  recent 
session  of  Congress  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  and  to  force  that 
State  into  the  Union  with  a  Constitution  which  her  people 
had  rejected  by  more  than  ten  thousand,  I  felt  bound  as 
a  man  of  honor  and  a  representative  of  Illinois,  bound  by 
every  consideration  of  duty,  of  fidelity,  and  of  patriotism, 
to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  the  consummation  of 
that  ffaud.     With  others  I  did  resist  it,  and  resisted  it 


Debate  285 

successfully  until  the  attempt  was  abandoned.  We  forced 
them  to  refer  that  Constitution  back  to  the  people  of 
Kansas,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  they  shall  decide 
at  an  election,  which  is  fixed  for  the  first  Monday  in 
August  next.  .  .  . 

"  Hence,  my  friends,  I  regard  the  Lecompton  battle  as 
having  been  fought  and  the  victory  won,  because  the 
arrogant  demand  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  unconditionally,  whether  her  peo- 
ple wanted  it  or  not,  has  been  abandoned,  and  the  princi- 
ple which  recognized  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for 
themselves  has  been  submitted  in  its  place. 

"  Fellow-citizens  :  While  I  devoted  my  best  energies  — 
all  my  energies,  mental  and  physical  —  to  the  vindication 
of  the  great  principle,  and  whilst  the  result  has  been  such 
as  will  enable  the  people  of  Kansas  to  come  into  the 
Union,  with  such  a  Constitution  as  they  desire,  yet  the 
credit  of  this  great  moral  victory  is  to  be  divided  among 
a  large  number  of  men  of  various  and  different  political 
creeds.  I  was  rejoiced  when  I  found  in  this  great  contest 
the  Republican  party  coming  up  manfully  and  sustaining 
the  principle  that  the  people  of  each  Territory,  when 
coming  into  the  Union,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  them- 
selves whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  I  have  seen  the  time  when  that  principle  was  con- 
troverted. I  have  seen  the  time  when  all  parties  did  not 
recognize  the  right  of  a  people  to  have  slavery  or  freedom, 
to  tolerate  or  prohibit  slavery,  as  they  deemed  best ;  but 
claimed  that  power  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  to  be  affected  by  it, 
and  when  I  found  upon  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill 
the  Republicans  and  Americans  of  the  North,  and  I  may 
say,  too,  some  glorious  Americans  and  old  line  Whigs  from 
the  South,   like   Crittenden   and  his  patriotic  associates, 


286  Argiimentatio7i  and  Debate 

joined  with  a  portion  of  the  Democracy  to  carry  out  and 
vindicate  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  whether  slavery 
should  or  should  not  exist  within  the  limits  of  Kansas,  I 
was  rejoiced  within  my  secret  soul,  for  I  saw  that  the 
American  people,  when  they  come  to  understand  the  prin- 
ciple, would  give  it  their  cordial  support."^ 

Mr.  Lincoln  opened  his  speech  in  reply  as  fol- 
lows:— 

"  My  fellow-citizens :  On  yesterday  evening,  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  reception  given  to  Senator  Douglas,  I  was 
furnished  with  a  seat  very  convenient  for  hearing  him,  and 
was  otherwise  very  courteously  treated  by  him  and  his 
friends,  and  for  which  I  thank  him  and  them.  During  the 
course  of  his  remarks  my  name  was  mentioned  in  such  a 
way  as,  I  suppose,  renders  it  at  least  not  improper  that  I 
should  make  some  sort  of  reply  to  him.  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  follow  him  in  the  precise  order  in  which  he  addressed 
the  assembled  multitude  upon  that  occasion,  though  I 
shall  perhaps  do  so  in  the  main. 

"  There  was  one  question  to  which  he  asked  the  atten- 
tion of  the  crowd,  which  I  deem  of  somewhat  less  impor- 
tance —  at  least  of  propriety  for  me  to  dwell  upon  —  than 
the  others,  which  he  brought  in  near  the  close  of  his 
speech,  and  which  I  think  it  would  not  be  entirely  proper 
for  me  to  omit  attending  to,  and  yet  if  I  were  not  to 
give  some  attention  to  it  now,  I  should  probably  forget  it 
altogether.  While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  allow  me  to  say 
that  I  do  not  intend  to  indulge  in  that  inconvenient  mode 
sometimes  adopted  in  public  speaking,  of  reading  from 
documents ;  but  I  shall  depart  from  that  rule  so  far  as  to 
read  a  little  scrap  from  his  speech,  which  notices  this  first 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  pp.  5-6.    FoUett,  Foster  and  G).,  i860. 


Debate  287 

topic  of  which  I  shall  speak  —  that  is,  provided  I  can  find 
it  in  the  paper. 

" '  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people 
against  the  combination  that  has  been  made  against  me ! 
the  Republican  leaders  have  formed  an  alliance,  an  unholy 
and  unnatural  alliance,  with  a  portion  of  unscrupulous 
federal  office-holders.  I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army 
wherever  I  meet  them.  I  know  they  deny  the  alliance,  but 
yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic 
party  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  Republican  Senator  in 
my  place,  are  just  as  much  the  agents  and  tools  of  the 
supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Hence  I  shall  deal  with  this 
allied  army  just  as  the  Russians  dealt  with  the  allied  forces 
at  Sebastopol  —  that  is,  the  Russians  did  not  stop  to 
inquire,  when  they  fired  a  broadside,  whether  it  hit  an 
Englishman,  a  Frenchman,  or  a  Turk.  Nor  will  I  stop  to 
inquire,  nor  shall  I  hesitate,  whether  my  blows  shall  hit 
these  Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding 
the  federal  offices  and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  them.' 

"  Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  very  alarming?  Just 
to  think  of  it !  right  at  the  outset  of  his  canvass,  I,  a  poor, 
kind,  amiable  gentleman,  I  am  to  be  slain  in  this  way. 
Why,  my  friend,  the  Judge,  is  not  only,  as  it  turns  out, 
not  a  dead  lion,  nor  even  a  living  one  —  he  is  the  rugged 
Russian  Bear ! 

"  But  if  they  will  have  it  —  for  he  says  that  we  deny  it  — 
that  there  is  any  such  alliance,  as  he  says  there  is  —  and  I 
don't  propose  hanging  very  much  upon  this  question  of 
veracity  —  but  if  he  will  have  it  that  there  is  such  an 
alliance  —  that  the  Administration  men  and  we  are  allied, 
and  we  stand  in  the  attitude  of  English,  French,  and  Turk, 
he  occupying  the  position  of  the  Russian,  in  that  case,  I 
beg  that  he  will  indulge  us  while  we  barely  suggest  to  him 
that  these  allies  took  Sebastopol.  .  .  . 


288  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  Popular  sovereignty  !  everlasting  popular  sovereignty  ! 
Let  us  for  a  moment  inquire  into  this  vast  matter  of 
popular  sovereignty,"  etc.-^ 

We  have  said,  that  the  value  of  the  introduction  of 
a  first  speaker  on  the  negative  depends  upon  its 
adaptation  to  the  circumstances.  This  is  also  true 
of  the  introduction  to  any  speech,  after  the  opening 
speech.  The  very  essence  of  debate,  as  contrasted 
with  simple  written  argumentation,  consists  in  seeing 
situations  and  meeting  them.  A  debater  who  demon- 
strates and  argues  regardless  of  what  the  opposition 
are  doing,  is  like  a  fencer  who  lunges  right  and  left 
without  looking  at  his  opponent.  Very  seldom  is  it 
safe  to  enter  the  discussion  without  taking  notice  of 
what  has  been  said  and  done  by  preceding  speakers, 
or  without  laying  some  foundation  of  sympathy  and 
understanding  with  the  audience. 

For  example,  contrast  the  two  following  introduc- 
tions. They  are  both  from  the  same  man,  Senator 
Robert  Y.  Hayne  of  South  CaroHna.  They  were 
both  delivered  in  the  same  debate,  the  debate  in  the 
Senate  in  1830,  on  the  famous  Foote  Resolution. 
But  there  is  this  difference :  the  first  is  the  intro- 
duction to  Mr.  Hayne's  opening  speech;  the  second 
is  part  of  the  introduction  to  a  second  speech,  deliv- 
ered at  a  later  stage  of  the  discussion,  after  he  had 
been  attacked  and  his  position  assailed  by  such 
senators    as    Benton    and   Webster.     The    contrast 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  pp.  14-15.     FoUett,  Foster  and  Co.,  i860. 


Debate  289 

shows   the   difference  in  tone  and  method  adapted 
to  the  different  situations. 

Mr.  Hayne's  opening  speech  began  as  follows:  — 

"  It  has  been  said,  and  correctly  said,  by  more  than  one 
gentleman,  that  resolutions  of  inquiry  were  usually  suffered 
to  pass  without  opposition.  The  parliamentary  practice 
in  this  respect  was  certainly  founded  in  good  sense  and 
sound  policy,  which  regarded  such  resolutions  as  intended 
merely  to  elicit  information,  and  therefore  entitled  to  favor. 
But  I  cannot  give  my  assent  to  the  proposition  so  broadly 
laid  down  by  some  gentlemen,  that  because  nobody  stands 
committed  by  a  vote  for  inquiry,  that,  therefore,  every 
resolution  proposing  an  inquiry,  no  matter  on  what  sub- 
ject, must  pass  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  that,  to 
discuss  or  oppose  such  resolutions,  is  unparliamentary. 
The  true  distinction  seems  to  be  this :  where  information 
is  desired  as  the  basis  of  legislation,  or  where  the  poHcy 
of  any  measure,  or  the  principles  it  involves,  are  really 
questionable,  it  was  always  proper  to  send  the  subject  to 
a  committee  for  investigation ;  but  where  all  the  material 
facts  are  already  known,  and  there  is  a  fixed  and  settled 
opinion  in  respect  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued,  inquiry  was 
unnecessary,  and  ought  to  be  refused.  No  one,  he  thought, 
could  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  position  assumed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Missouri,  that  no  inquiry  ought  ever  to 
be  instituted  as  to  the  expediency  of  doing  '  a  great  and 
acknowledged -wrong.'  I  do  not  mean,  however,  to  inti- 
mate an  opinion  that  such  is  the  character  of  this  resolu- 
tion. The  application  of  these  rules  to  the  case  before  us 
will  decide  my  vote,  and  every  Senator  can  apply  them  for 
himself  to  the  decision  of  the  question,  whether  the  inquiry 
now  called  for  should  be  granted  or  refused.  With  that 
decision,  whatever  it  may  be,  I  shall  be  content. 


290  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  I  have  not  risen,  however,  Mr.  President,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discussing  the  propriety  of  instituting  the  inquiry 
recommended  by  the  resolution,  but  to  offer  a  few  remarks 
on  another  and  much  more  important  question,  to  which 
gentlemen  have  alluded  in  the  course  of  this  debate  —  I 
mean  the  policy  which  ought  to  be  pursued  in  relation  to 
the  public  lands.  Every  gentleman  who  has  had  a  seat  in 
Congress  for  the  last  two  or  three  years,  or  even  for  the 
last  two  or  three  weeks,  must  be  convinced  of  the  great 
and  growing  importance  of  this  question.  More  than  half 
of  our  time  has  been  taken  up  with  the  discussion  of 
propositions  connected  with  the  public  lands ;  more  than 
half  of  our  acts  embrace  provisions  growing  out  of  this 
fruitful  source.  Day  after  day  the  changes  are  rung  on 
this  topic,  from  the  grave  inquiry  into  the  right  of  the 
new  States  to  the  absolute  sovereignty  and  property  in 
the  soil,  down  to  the  grant  of  a  preemption  of  a  few 
quarter  sections  to  actual  settlers.  In  the  language  of  a 
great  orator  in  relation  to  another  '  vexed  question,'  we 
may  truly  say,  '  that  year  after  year  we  have  been  lashed 
round  the  miserable  circle  of  occasional  arguments  and 
temporary  expedients.'  No  gentleman  can  fail  to  per- 
ceive that  this  is  a  question  no  longer  to  be  evaded ;  it 
must  be  met  —  fairly  and  fearlessly  met.  A  question  that 
is  pressed  upon  us  in  so  many  ways  ;  that  intrudes  in  such 
a  variety  of  shapes ;  involving  so  deeply  the  feelings  and 
interests  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Union ;  insinuating 
itself  into  almost  every  question  of  public  policy,  and 
tinging  the  whole  course  of  our  legislation,  cannot  be  put 
aside  or  laid  asleep.  We  cannot  long  avoid  it ;  we  must 
meet  and  overcome  it,  or  it  will  overcome  us.  Let  us, 
then,  be  prepared  to  encounter  it  in  a  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  of  justice,  and  endeavor  to  prepare  our  own  minds 
and  the  minds  of  the  people  for  a  just  and  enlightened 


Debate  291 

decision.  The  object  of  the  remarks  I  am  about  to  offer 
is  merely  to  call  public  attention  to  the  question,  to  throw 
out  a  few  crude  and  undigested  thoughts,  as  food  for 
reflection,  in  order  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  the 
adoption,  at  no  distant  day,  of  some  fixed  and  settled 
policy  in  relation  to  the  public  lands.  I  believe  that,  out 
of  the  western  country,  there  is  no  subject  in  the  whole 
range  of  our  legislation  less  understood,  and  in  relation 
to  which  there  exists  so  many  errors,  and  such  unhappy 
prejudices  and  misconception. 

"  There  may  be  said  to  be  two  great  parties  in  this 
country,  who  entertain  very  opposite  opinions  in  relation 
to  the  character  of  the  policy  which  the  Government  has 
heretofore  pursued,  in  relation  to  public  lands,  as  well  as 
to  that  which  ought,  hereafter,  to  be  pursued."^ 

The  introduction  to  his  second  speech,  in  part, 
was :  — 

"When  I  took  occasion,  two  days  ago,  to  throw  out 
some  ideas  with  respect  to  the  policy  of  the  Government 
in  relation  to  the  public  lands,  nothing  certainly  could 
have  been  farther  from  my  thoughts  than  that  I  should  be 
compelled  again  to  throw  myself  upon  the  indulgence  of 
the  Senate.  Little  did  I  expect  to  be  called  upon  to  meet 
such  an  argument  as  was  yesterday  urged  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Webster].  Sir,  I  ques- 
tioned no  man's  opinions;  I  impeached  no  man's  motives; 
I  charged  no  party,  or  State,  or  section  of  country,  with 
hostility  to  any  other ;  but  ventured,  I  thought  in  a  becom- 
ing spirit,  to  put  forth  my  own  sentiments  in  relation  to  a 
great  national  question  of  public  policy.  Such  was  my 
course'.     The  gentleman  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Benton],  it  is 

1  Debates  in  Congress,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  pp.  21-32.  Gales  and 
Seaton,  Washington,   1830. 


292  Argumentation  aiid  Debate 

true,  had  charged  upon  the  Eastern  States  an  early  and 
continued  hostiUty  towards  the  West,  and  referred  to  a 
number  of  historical  facts  and  documents  in  support  of 
that  charge.  Now,  sir,  how  have  these  different  argu- 
ments been  met  ?  The  honorable  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts, after  deliberating  a  whole  night  upon  his  course, 
comes  into  this  chamber  to  vindicate  New  England,  and, 
instead  of  making  up  his  issue  with  the  gentleman  from 
Missouri,  on  the  charges  which  he  had  preferred,  chooses 
to  consider  me  as  the  author  of  those  charges,  and,  losing 
sight  entirely  of  that  gentleman,  selects  me  as  his  adver- 
sary, and  pours  out  all  the  vials  of  his  mighty  wrath  upon 
my  devoted  head.  Nor  is  he  willing  to  stop  there.  He 
goes  on  to  assail  the  institutions  and  policy  of  the  South, 
and  calls  in  question  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the 
State  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent.  When  I  find 
a  gentleman  of  mature  age  and  experience,  of  acknowl- 
edged talents  and  profound  sagacity,  pursuing  a  course 
like  this,  declining  the  contest  offered  from  the  West,  and 
making  war  upon  the  unoffending  South,  I  must  believe,  I 
am  bound  to  believe,  he  has  some  object  in  view  that  he 
has  not  ventured  to  disclose.  Why  is  this  ?  Has  the 
gentleman  discovered  in  former  controversies  with  the 
gentleman  from  Missouri  that  he  is  overmatched  by  that 
Senator  ?  And  does  he  hope  for  a  more  easy  victory  over 
a  more  feeble  adversary?  Has  the  gentleman's  distem- 
pered fancy  been  disturbed  by  gloomy  forebodings  of 
*new  alliances  to  be  formed,'  at  which  he  hinted?  Has 
the  ghost  of  the  murdered  Coalition  come  back,  like  the 
ghost  of  Banquo,  to  '  sear  the  eye-balls  '  of  the  gentleman, 
and  will  it  not  '  down  at  his  bidding  '  ?  Are  dark  visions 
of  broken  hopes,  and  honors  lost  forever,  still  floating 
before  his  heated  imagination  ?  Sir,  if  it  be  his  object  to 
thrust  me  between  the  gentleman  from  Missouri  and  him- 


Debate  293 

self,  in  order  to  rescue  the  East  from  the  contest  it  has 
provoked  with  the  West,  he  shall  not  be  gratified.  Sir,  I 
will  not  be  dragged  into  the  defence  of  my  friend  from 
Missouri.  The  South  shall  not  be  forced  into  a  conflict 
not  its  own.  The  gentleman  from  Missouri  is  able  to 
fight  his  own  battles.  The  gallant  West  needs  no  aid 
from  the  South  to  repel  any  attack  which  may  be  made  on 
them  from  any  quarter.  Let  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts controvert  the  facts  and  arguments  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Missouri  —  if  he  can  ;  and  if  he  win  the  victory, 
let  him  wear  its  honors :  I  shall  not  deprive  him  of  his 
laurels."^ 

B.  Definition  of  terms  in  the  introduction  is  espe- 
cially important  in  debate.  We  have  seen  that  the 
purpose  of  all  preliminary  definition  is,  to  enable  the 
reader  or  hearer  readily  to  comprehend  the  terms 
used  in  the  discussion.  In  written  argumentation,  if 
the  reader  runs  across  a  Mrord  or  a  phrase  that  he 
does  not  understand,  he  can  pause  and  think  it  over 
till  he  does  understand,  or  he  can  even  lay  aside  the 
essay  for  a  time  until  he  can  find  out  the  meaning 
elsewhere.  But  in  spoken  discourse  it  is  different. 
The  audience  must  catch  the  meaning  of  every  phrase 
and  every  idea  as  it  falls  from  the  lips  of  the  speaker, 
or  they  will  not  get  it  at  all,  and  the  effect  of  the 
whole  argument  will  be  lost.  Consequently,  the 
greatest  care  must  be  taken  that  no  term  is  left 
ambiguous.  The  methods  of  defining  have  already 
been  explained ;  it  only  needs  to  be  emphasized  that 

1  Debates  in  Congress,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  p.  43.  Gales  and  Beaton, 
Washington,  1830. 


294  Argumentation  and  Debate 

definition  is  more  important  in  debate  than  in  any 
other  form  of  discussion. 

For  a  similar  reason  the  issues  anH  the  explanation 
of  the  question  are  important.  And  there  is  this  ad- 
ditional reason  for  giving  attention  to  the  issues :  in 
debate  a  great  multiplicity  of  facts  and  arguments 
is  thrown  together  in  a  short  time ;  and  an  audience 
may  easily  become  perplexed  in  the  midst  of  such 
confusion,  unless  they  are  given  some  standard  of 
judgment.  An  audience  cannot  see  the  force  or 
bearing  of  arguments,  unless  they  understand  what 
are  the  vital  points  in  the  question.  If  they  know 
the  issues,  they  can  appreciate  the  meaning  of  any 
important  fact  that  is  presented,  and  they  will  be 
likely  to  remember  it ;  but  an  audience,  left  free  to 
judge  things  according  to  their  own  previous  knowl- 
edge and  preconceived  opinions,  cannot  be  relied  on 
to  judge  rightly  as  to  what  is  worth  remembering. 
For  these  reasons  the  issues  should  almost  always  be 
presented  in  the  introduction  in  some  form,  and  fur- 
ther, it  is  wise  to  repeat  them  in  various  forms  in 
the  discussion,  keeping  them  always  clear  before  the 
audience. 

The  desirability  of  the  partition  is  always  a  matter 
of  judgment,  depending  entirely  on  the  circumstances. 
It  always  contributes  to  clearness  ;  but  it  is  sometimes 
unwise  to  reveal  to  the  enemy  the  line  of  attack  you 
intend  to  pursue.  Sometimes  a  distinct  partition  is 
impossible ;  for  example,  in  the  Lincoln-Douglas  de- 
bates a  definite  partition  would  have  been  awkward 


Debate  295 

and  inappropriate,  for  no  particular  question  was 
under  discussion,  the  debates  being  informal  and 
extemporaneous,  and  really  but  a  running  fight. 

In  general  a  partition  of  some  kind  is  desirable, 
unless  there  is  some  objection  to  it,  such  as  those 
suggested  above.  A  partition  need  not  be  formal  in 
character ;  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  division  of 
the  proof  into  three,  four,  or  five  parts,  stating  exactly 
what  is  to  be  proved.  The  partition  may  be  very 
cursory  and  informal,  merely  suggesting  for  the  sake 
of  clearness  the  general  course  to  be  followed  in  the 
discussion ;  for  example,  in  the  following,  taken  from 
the  introduction  to  Charles  Sumner's  speech  in  the 
Senate,  May  19  and  20,  1856,  on  the  "Bill  for  the 
Admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union,"  Mr.  Sumner 
makes  a  partition,  which  adds  greatly  to  the  clear- 
ness and  force  of  the  speech,  but  which,  at  the  same 
time,  has  no  air  of  formality  and  reveals  nothing  of 
the  character  of  the  argument  to  follow :  — 

"  Such  is  the  Crime  and  such  the  criminal  which  it  is 
my  duty  to  expose ;  and,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  this  duty 
shall  be  done  completely  to  the  end.  But  this  will  not 
be  enough.  The  Apologies,  which,  with  strange  hardi- 
hood are  offered  for  the  Crime,  must  be  torn  away,  so 
that  it  shall  stand  forth  without  a  single  rag  or  fig-leaf  to 
cover  its  vileness.  And,  finally,  the  True  Remedy  must 
be  shown.  The  subject  is  complex  in  relations,  as  it  is 
transcendent  in  importance ;  and  yet,  if  I  am  honored  by 
your  attention,  I  hope  to  present  it  clearly  in  all  its  parts, 
while  I  conduct  you  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  Kan- 
sas must  be  admitted  at  once,  with  her  present  Constitu- 


296  Argumentation  and  Debate 

tion,  as  a  State  of  this  Union,  and  give  a  new  star  to  the 
blue  field  of  our  National  Flag.  And  here  I  derive  satis- 
faction from  the  thought  that  the  cause  is  so  strong  in 
itself  as  to  bear  even  the  infirmities  of  its  advocates ;  nor 
can  it  require  anything  beyond  that  simplicity  of  treatment 
and  moderation  of  manner  which  I  desire  to  cultivate.  Its 
true  character  is  such  that,  like  Hercules,  it  will  conquer 
just  so  soon  as  it  is  recognized. 

"  My  task  will  be  divided  under  three  different  heads ; 
firsts  The  Crime  against  Kansas,  in  its  origin  and  ex- 
tent ;  secondly^  The  Apologies  for  the  Crime  ;  and, 
thirdly,  T^^  True  Remedy."^ 

III.    The  Discussion 

A.  In  drawing  a  brief  for  use  in  debate,  particu- 
lar care  should  be  taken  in  the  selection  of  the  main 
heads.  Not  only  should  the  question  be  divided  accu- 
rately and  logically,  but  also  attention  should  be  given 
to  the  forms  of  statement  of  the  headings.  These 
main  headings  are  sure  to  be  the  objective  points  of 
the  attack  of  the  other  side,  and  they  must  be  made 
strong  enough  to  stand  the  shock.  If  an  opponent 
can  force  you  to  take  back  a  phrase,  or  to  acknowl- 
edge an  exaggeration  in  any  of  your  fundamental 
propositions,  he  has  scored  a  point,  and  the  audience 
will  always  give  him  credit  for  it,  often  more  credit 
than  he  really  deserves.  Carelessness  or  rhetorical 
flourish  must  never  be  permitted  to  make  a  main 
heading  say  either  more  or  less  than  exactly  what  is 
meant.     Intrenchments  are  not  built   because   they 

1  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  143-144.  Lee  and 
Shepard,  Boston,  1872. 


Debate  297 

look  well,  but  because  they  can  be  held  against 
attack;  main  headings  are  not  made  because  they 
sound  well,  but  because  they  offer  definite  points  of 
resistance  to  an  opponent. 

Senator  Douglas,  in  the  debates  mentioned  above, 
with  his  habitually  bombastic  style  of  oratory,  made 
many  wild  charges  and  assertions.  Often  the  point 
he  aimed  to  establish  was  valid,  but,  through  care- 
lessness or  over-excitement,  he  exaggerated.  He 
had  an  able  opponent,  and  every  blunder  and  every 
exaggeration  was  laid  bare,  much  to  his  discomfiture 
and  humiliation.  Lincoln,  on  the  other  hand,  as  he 
himself  admitted  in  the  discussion,  prepared  with 
sedulous  care  the  statement  of  every  important  propo- 
sition he  advanced.  His  propositions  were  attacked 
and  his  attitude  was  repeatedly  misrepresented  by 
Senator  Douglas,  but  reply  was  not  difficult;  Lin- 
coln had  only  to  read  the  exact  words  of  his  former 
speeches  and  reiterate  his  statements,  thus  at  the 
same  time  reenforcing  his  own  position  and  exposing 
the  trickery  of  his  opponent.  For  example,  in  the 
following  selection  Lincoln  replies  to  such  an  attack 
on  one  of  his  fundamental  propositions  :  — 

"Out  of  this  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his  beautiful 
fabrication  —  of  my  purpose  to  introduce  a  perfect,  social, 
and  political  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races. 
His  assertion  that  I  made  an  '  especial  objection '  ...  to 
the  decision  [the  Dred  Scott  decision]  on  this  account  is 
untrue  in  point  of  fact. 

"  Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  Henry 


298  Argnmentatiojt  and  Debate 

Clay  has  been  alluded  to,  I  desire  to  place  myself  in  con- 
nection with  Mr.  Clay  as  nearly  right  before  this  people 
as  may  be.  I  am  quite  aware  what  the  Judge's  object  is 
here  by  all  these  allusions.  He  knows  that  we  are  before 
an  audience,  having  strong  sympathies  southward  by  rela- 
tionship, place  of  birth,  and  so  on.  He  desires  to  place 
me  in  an  extremely  abolition  attitude.  He  read  upon  a 
former  occasion,  and  alludes  without  reading  to-day,  to  a 
portion  of  a  speech  which  I  delivered  in  Chicago.  In  his 
quotations  from  that  speech,  as  he  has  made  them  upon 
former  occasions,  the  extracts  were  taken  in  such  a  way 
as,  I  suppose,  brings  them  within  the  definition  of  what  is 
Q,2XiQ.di  garbling — taking  portions  of  a  speech  which,  when 
taken  by  themselves,  do  not  present  the  entire  sense  of 
the  speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose,  there- 
fore, out  of  that  same  speech  to  show  how  one  portion  of 
it  which  he  skipped  over  (taking  an  extract  before  and  an 
extract  after)  will  give  a  different  idea,  and  the  true  idea 
I  intended  to  convey.  .  .  . 

"  Allow  me  .  .  .  briefly  to  present  one  extract  from  a 
speech  of  mine,  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  Springfield,  in 
discussing  this  very  same  question,  soon  after  Judge 
Douglas  took  his  ground  that  negroes  were  not  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  — 

"  '  I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  intended 
to  include  ^// men,  but  they  did  not  mean  to  declare  all 
men  equal  in  all  respects.  They  did  not  mean  to  say  all 
men  were  equal  in  color,  size,  intellect,  moral  development, 
or  social  capacity.  They  defined  with  tolerable  distinct- 
ness in  what  they  did  consider  all  men  created  equal  — 
equal  in  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  This  they  said,  and 
this  they  meant.  They  did  not  mean  to  assert  the  obvi- 
ous  untruth,  that   all   men   were   actually  enjoying  that 


Debate  299 

equality,  or  yet,  that  they  were  about  to  confer  it  immedi- 
ately upon  them.  In  fact  they  had  no  power  to  confer 
such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare  the  rights  so 
that  the  enforcement  of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as  circum- 
stances should  permit. 

" '  They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free 
society  which  should  be  familiar  to  all :  constantly  looked 
to,  constantly  labored  for,  and  even,  though  never  per- 
fectly attained,  constantly  approximated,  and  thereby 
constantly  spreading  and  deepening  its  influence,  and  aug- 
menting the  happiness  and  value  of  life  to  all  people,  of 
all  colors,  everywhere.' 

"  There  again  are  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed  in 
regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  upon  a  former 
occasion  —  sentiments  which  have  been  put  in  print  and 
read  wherever  anybody  cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an 
individual  as  myself  chose  to  say  in  regard  to  it."^ 

B.  Another  evidence  of  the  skill  of  these  two  de- 
baters is  found  in  the  constant  repetition  by  both,  of 
sentences  and  phrases  containing  their  main  proposi- 
tions. In  speech  after  speech,  and  many  times  over 
in  each  speech,  Senator  Douglas  repeated  his  cry  of 
"popular  sovereignty,  the  right  of  the  people  of  a 
State  to  settle  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves," 
and  his  demand  for  "  obedience  to  the  decision  of  the 
highest  tribunal  in  the  land,  the  Supreme  Court." 
Lincoln  we  find  reiterating  with  equal  persistence 
his  statements  that  "a  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand  ;  this  government  cannot  endure  perma- 
nently half   slave  and  half  free  " ;   that  "  slavery  is 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  p.  224.  FoUett,  Foster  and  Co.,  Colum- 
bus, i860. 


300  Argumentation  and  Debate 

wrong  " ;  that  **  slavery  must  be  put  where  it  was  put 
at  the  foundation  of  the  government,  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction." 

It  is  well,  in  preparing  a  case,  to  bear  in  mind  the 
desirability  of  this  repetition.  Every  main  heading 
should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  stated  in  such  rhetorical 
form  that  it  can  be  easily  and  forcibly  repeated ;  it 
should  be  stated  briefly  and  in  clear  and  simple  lan- 
guage. Sometimes  it  is  effective  to  compress  the  idea 
into  a  single  word  or  phrase ;  as,  for  illustration, 
Charles  Sumner  did  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on 
the  "Crime  against  Kansas,"  a  speech  referred  to 
above : — 

"  And  with  this  exposure  I  take  my  leave  of  the  Crime 
against  Kansas.  Emerging  from  all  the  blackness  of  this 
Crime,  where  we  seem  to  have  been  lost,  as  in  a  savage 
wood,  and  turning  our  backs  upon  it,  as  upon  desolation 
and  death,  from  which,  while  others  have  suffered,  we 
have  escaped,  I  come  now  to  THE  APOLOGIES  which 
the  Crime  has  found.  .  .  . 

"  They  are  four  in  number,  and  fourfold  in  character. 
The  first  is  the  Apology  tyrannical;  the  second,  the  Apology 
imbecile ;  the  third,  the  Apology  absurd;  and  the  fourth, 
the  Apology  infamous.  That  is  all.  Tyranny,  imbecility, 
absurdity,  and  infamy  all  unite  to  dance,  like  the  weird 
sisters,  about  this  Crime. 

"The  Apology  tyrannically  founded  on  the  mistaken  act 
of  Governor  Reeder,  in  authenticating  the  Usurping  Legis- 
lature," etc. 

Again,  later  in  his  speech,  he  said  :  — 

"  As  the  Apologies  were  fourfold,  so  are  the  proposed 
Remedies  fourfold  ;  and  they  range  themselves  in  natural 


Debate  301 

order,  under  designations  which  so  truly  disclose  their 
character  as  even  to  supersede  argument.  First,  we  have 
the  Remedy  of  Tyranny ;  next,  the  Remedy  of  Folly ;  next, 
the  Remedy  of  Injustice  and  Civil  War ;  and,  fourthly,  the 
Remedy  of  Justice  and  Peace.  There  are  four  caskets  ;  and 
you  are  to  determine  which  shall  be  opened  by  Senatorial 
votes. 

"  There  is  the  Remedy  of  Tyranny^  which,  like  its  com- 
plement, the  Apology  of  Tyranny,  —  though  espoused  on 
this  floor,  especially  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois, — pro- 
ceeds from  the  President,  and  is  embodied  in  a  special 
message,"  etc.^ 

This  method  has  the  virtue  of  vividness.  Each  of 
the  phrases  chosen  is  striking  and  likely  to  stick  in 
the  memory ;  it  can  be  readily  repeated  and  almost 
turned  into  a  sort  of  war-cry.  But  care  must  be 
taken  in  choosing  the  phrase,  to  see  that  it  is  appro- 
priate and  that  it  expresses  the  full  meaning  of  the 
speaker.  Furthermore,  the  audience  must  always  be 
made  to  understand  just  what  the  phrase  implies ;  the 
word  "  heading  "  is  always  a  name  rather  than  a  propo- 
sition, and  is  liable  to  be  vague  or  ambiguous  if  left 
unexplained.  Mr.  Sumner,  in  the  speech  quoted 
above,  was  careful,  in  every  case,  to  state  in  fair  and 
full  language  the  exact  proposition  he  intended  to  at- 
tack or  support ;  for  example,  after  stating,  as  quoted 
above,  the  four  apologies  made  by  his  opponents, 
naming  them,  respectively,  "  the  apology  tyranni- 
cal, the  apology  imbecile,  the  apology  absurd,  and  the 

1  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  184  and  185.  Lee  and 
Shepard,  Boston,  1872. 


302  Argumentation  and  Debate 

apology  infamous,"  he  goes  on  to  explain  the  mean- 
ing  of  each  name  as  follows :  — 

"  Next  comes  the  Apology  imbecile,  which  is  founded  on 
the  alleged  want  of  power  in  the  President  to  arrest  this 
Crime.  It  is  openly  asserted,  that,  under  existing  laws, 
the  Chief  Magistrate  has  no  authority  to  interfere  in 
Kansas  for  this  purpose.  .  .  . 

"  Next  comes  the  Apology  absurd,  which  is,  indeed,  in 
the  nature  of  pretext.  It  is  alleged  that  a  small  printed 
pamphlet,  containing  the  '  Constitution  and  Ritual  of  the 
Grand  Encampment  and  Regiments  of  the  Kansas  Legion,' 
was  taken  from  the  person  of  one  George  F.  Warren,  who 
attempted  to  avoid  detection  by  chewing  it.  The  oaths 
and  grandiose  titles  of  the  pretended  Legion  are  also  set 
forth,  and  this  poor  mummery  of  a  secret  society,  which 
existed  only  on  paper,  is  gravely  introduced  on  this  floor, 
in  order  to  extenuate  the  Crime  against  Kansas.  It  has 
been  paraded  in  more  than  one  speech,  and  even  stuffed 
into  the  report  of  the  Committee,"  etc.  ^ 

C.  The  desirability  and  proper  use  of  summaries 
and  partitions  in  the  discussion,  has  been  sufficiently 
treated  in  the  chapters  on  Presentation.  But  it 
should  be  said  here,  in  addition,  that  the  best  oppor- 
tunity for  using  these  artifices  is  found  in  debate. 
Something  of  this  kind  is  necessary  to  bring  order 
out  of  chaos.  In  the  confusion  of  argument,  answer, 
and  rejoinder,  of  evidence  and  counter  evidence,  of 
big  things  and  little  things,  crowded  together  and  fol- 
lowing one  another  in  rapid  succession,  the  effect  on 
the  audience  easily  becomes  kaleidoscopic ;  they  see 

^  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  187  and  192.  Lee  and 
Shepard,  Boston,  1872. 


Debate  303 

the  combinations  of  shapes  and  colors  tossing  about 
before  their  eyes,  but  there  is  nothing  in  particular  to 
be  impressed  by,  or  to  remember.  These  defects  can 
be  avoided  in  large  measure  by  the  use  of  internal 
summaries,  i.e.  summaries  at  various  points  within 
the  proof,  which  serve  to  pick  out  the  really  impor- 
tant things  in  the  question  and  impress  them  clearly 
upon  the  attention  and  memory. 

Furthermore,  used  in  conjunction  with  partitions, 
they  keep  the  audience  always  informed  just  where 
they  are  and  where  they  are  to  be  led  next.  At 
every  turn  in  the  course  of  the  debate  there  are  many 
roads  branching  out  in  various  directions.  A  sum- 
mary or  a  partition,  or  the  two  in  combination,  makes 
clear  to  the  Hstener  that  he  has  reached  the  end  of 
one  road  and  put  it  behind  him,  and  that  he  is  now 
to  turn  in  a  certain  new  direction  for  a  time.  Par- 
ticularly when,  in  debate,  some  point  has  been 
discussed  back  and  forth  for  a  time  between  the  op- 
posing sides,  it  is  almost  necessary  to  summarize  what 
has  been  said  on  each  side,  to  compare  the  opposing 
proofs,  and  make  clear  what  you  would  have  the 
audience  believe  is  the  result  of  it  all.  It  is  only 
in  this  way  that  matters  can  be  brought  to  some 
conclusion,  and  the  audience  made  ready  to  turn 
their  attention  elsewhere. 

The  personal  tone  to  be  cultivated  in  debate  is 
a  serious  matter,  and  a  matter  concerning  which 
many  flagrant  mistakes  are  made.  The  personal 
element    in    debate   is    large.     There   the    speaker 


304  Argumentation  and  Debate 

usually  stands  as  the  immediate  sponsor  for  all  that 
he  says  and  does ;  he  is  an  advocate,  personally 
responsible  for  every  opinion  he  advances :  the  man 
and  the  cause  are  inextricably  bound  together.  This 
condition  of  affairs  has  two  results :  the  first  is,  that 
the  audience  will  be  greatly  influenced  by  the  per- 
sonality of  the  speaker;  the  second,  that  there  is 
a  temptation  to  attack  an  opponent  for  his  per- 
sonality as  well  as  for  the  principles  he  advocates. 
It  follows  that  two  of  the  main  purposes  of  a  debater 
must  be  to  win  sympathy  for  himself  and  to  dis- 
countenance his  opponent. 

But  unfortunately  these  two  purposes  may  conflict 
with  each  other.  Sarcasm,  ridicule,  and  even  per- 
sonalities are  undoubtedly  admissible  and  helpful, 
when  properly  handled,  in  discrediting  an  opponent ; 
but,  improperly  handled,  they  are  as  harmful  in 
discrediting  the  man  who  uses  them.  These  are 
dangerous  weapons,  treacherously  two-edged :  a 
blow  well  delivered  will  cut  and  maim  an  enemy, 
but  a  slip  or  a  blunder  will  surely  turn  the  blow 
against  its  author.  With  respect  to  personalities,  i.e. 
attacks  on  the  character  or  actions  of  a  man,  Shake- 
speare offers  a  good  motto  :  — 

"...  Beware 
Of  entrance  to  a  quarrel ;  but,  being  in, 
Bear't  that  the  opposer  may  beware  of  thee." 

An  audience  always  sympathizes  with  the  man  that 
sticks  to  the  question  and  treats  his  "  friends  of  the 
other  side  "  with  courtesy  and  good  humor ;  if  a  case 


Debate  305 

cannot  be  won  on  its  merits,  rarely  can  it  be  won  by 
resort  to  personalities.  On  the  other  hand,  an  audi- 
ence invariably  respects  a  man  who  can  defend  him- 
self, and  who  has  in  him  the  spirit  of  fight  that 
resents  a  foul  blow.  A  debater  must  never  give 
ground,  even  if  his  opponent  resorts  to  weapons  that 
he  himself  scorns  to  use. 

In  repeUing  such  a  personal  attack  there  is  one 
temptation, — the  temptation  to  answer  abuse  with 
abuse.  The  man  who  has  the  quarrel  forced  on 
him  has  the  sympathy  of  the  audience  at  the  start, 
and,  if  he  is  wise,  he  will  take  care  to  retain  that 
sympathy  by  keeping  his  dignity  and  self-control. 
If  he  descends  to  the  level  chosen  by  his  assailant, 
and  combats  poison  with  poison,  he  has  thrown  away 
his  advantage  and  must  fight  on  even  terms. 

A  model  of  personal  tone  may  be  found  in  Lin- 
coln's conduct  of  his  debate  with  Douglas,  mentioned 
above.  Fully  to  appreciate  his  good-humored  self- 
control  and  his  simple,  but  resolute,  dignity,  requires 
the  reading  of  the  speeches  of  Senator  Douglas, 
filled  as  they  are  with  misrepresentation  and  per- 
sonal abuse.  In  his  speech  at  Springfield,  July  17, 
Mr.  Lincoln  said  :  — 

"  Having  made  that  speech  with  the  most  kindly  feeling 
toward  Judge  Douglas,  as  manifested  therein,  I  was  grati- 
fied when  I  found  that  he  had  carefully  examined  it  and 
had  detected  no  error  of  fact,  nor  any  inference  against 
him,  nor  any  misrepresentations,  of  which  he  thought  fit 
to  complain.  In  neither  of  the  two  speeches  I  have  men- 
tioned did  he  make  any  such  complaint.     I   will   thank 

X 


3o6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

any  one  who  will  inform  me  that  he,  in  his  speech  to-day, 
pointed  out  anything  I  had  stated,  respecting  him,  as  being 
erroneous.  I  presume  there  is  no  such  thing.  I  have 
reason  to  be  gratified  that  the  care  and  caution  used  in 
that  speech  left  it  so  that  he,  most  of  all  others  interested 
in  discovering  error,  has  not  been  able  to  point  out  one 
thing  against  him  which  he  could  say  was  wrong.  He 
seizes  upon  the  doctrines  he  supposes  to  be  included  in 
that  speech,  and  declares  that  upon  them  will  turn  the 
issue  of  this  campaign.  He  then  quotes,  or  attempts  to 
quote,  from  my  speech.  I  will  not  say  that  he  wilfully 
misquotes,  but  he  does  fail  to  quote  accurately.  His 
attempt  at  quoting  is  from  a  passage  which  I  believe 
I  can  quote  accurately  from  memory.  I  shall  make  the 
quotation  now,  with  some  comments  upon  it,  as  I  have 
already  said,  in  order  that  the  judge  shall  be  left  entirely 
without  excuse  for  misrepresenting  me.  I  do  so  now,  as 
I  hope,  for  the  last  time.  I  do  this  in  great  caution,  in 
order  that  if  he  repeats  his  misrepresentation,  it  shall  be 
plain  to  all  that  he  does  so  wilfully.  If,  after  all,  he  still 
persists,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  reconstruct  the  course  I 
have  marked  out  for  myself,  and  draw  upon  such  humble 
resources  as  I  have  for  a  new  course,  better  suited  to 
the  real  exigencies  of  the  case.  I  set  out,  in  this  cam- 
paign, with  the  intention  of  conducting  it  strictly  as 
a  gentleman,  in  substance  at  least,  if  not  in  the  outside 
polish.  The  latter  I  shall  never  be,  but  that  which  consti- 
tutes the  inside  of  a  gentleman  I  hope  I  understand,  and 
am  not  less  inclined  to  practise  than  others.  It  was  my 
purpose  and  expectation  that  this  canvass  would  be 
conducted  upon  principle,  and  with  fairness  upon  both 
sides,  and  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  this  purpose  and 
expectation  shall  be  given  up."^ 

1  Lincoln-Douglas   Debates,  p.  58.     FoUett,  Foster  and  Co.,  Co- 
lumbus, i860. 


Debate  307 

Later,  in  his  opening  speech  in  the  sixth  joint 
debate,  at  Quincy,  October  13,  he  said:  — 

"  He  reminds  me  of  the  fact  that  he  entered  upon  this 
canvass  with  the  purpose  to  treat  me  courteously ;  that 
touched  me  somewhat.  It  sets  me  thinking.  I  was  aware, 
when  it  was  first  agreed  that  Judge  Douglas  and  I  were  to 
have  these  seven  joint  discussions,  that  they  were  the  suc- 
cessive acts  of  a  drama  —  perhaps  I  should  say,  to  be 
enacted  not  merely  in  the  face  of  audiences  like  this,  but 
in  the  face  of  the  nation,  and  to  some  extent,  by  my  rela- 
tion to  him,  and  not  from  anything  in  myself,  in  the  face  of 
the  world  ;  and  I  am  anxious  that  they  should  be  conducted 
with  dignity  and  in  the  good  temper  which  should  be  be- 
fitting the  vast  audience  before  which  it  was  conducted. 
But  when  Judge  Douglas  got  home  from  Washington  and 
made  his  first  speech  in  Chicago,  the  evening  afterward 
I  made  some  sort  of  reply  to  it.  His  second  speech  was 
made  at  Bloomington,  in  which  he  commented  upon  my 
speech  at  Chicago,  and  said  that  I  had  used  language  in- 
geniously contrived  to  conceal  my  intentions,  or  words  to 
that  effect.  Now,  I  understand  that  this  is  an  imputation 
upon  my  veracity  and  candor.  I  do  not  know  what  the 
Judge  understood  by  it ;  but  in  our  first  discussion  at 
Ottawa  he  led  off  by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat  cor- 
rupt in  character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself  —  that  we 
had  entered  into  a  bargain,  one  of  the  terms  of  which  was 
that  Trumbull  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Democratic 
party,  and  I  (Lincoln)  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Whig 
party — I  pretending  to  be  as  good  an  old-line  Whig  as 
ever.  Judge  Douglas  may  not  understand  that  he  impli- 
cated my  truthfulness  and  my  honor  when  he  said  I  was 
doing  one  thing  and  pretending  another ;  and  I  misunder- 
stood him  if  he  thought  he  was  treating  me  in  a  dignified 
way,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  truth,  as  he  now  claims  he 


3o8  Argumentation  and  Debate 

was  disposed  to  treat  me.  Even  after  that  time,  at  Gales- 
burgh,  when  he  brings  forward  an  extract  from  a  speech 
made  at  Chicago,  and  an  extract  from  a  speech  made  at 
Charleston,  to  prove  that  I  was  trying  to  play  a  double 
part — that  I  was  trying  to  cheat  the  public,  and  get  votes 
upon  one  set  of  principles  at  one  place  and  upon  another 
set  of  principles  at  another  place  —  I  dp  not  understand 
but  that  he  impeached  my  honor,  my  veracity,  and  my 
candor,  and  because  he  does  this,  I  do  not  understand 
that  I  am  bound,  if  I  see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep 
my  hands  off  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  Judge 
Douglas  was  disposed  to  treat  me  in  this  way,  I  signified 
in  one  of  my  speeches  that  I  should  be  driven  to  draw 
upon  whatever  of  humble  resources  I  might  have  to  adopt 
a  new  course  with  him.  I  was  not  entirely  sure  that  I 
should  be  able  to  hold  my  own  with  him,  but  I  at  least 
had  the  purpose  made  to  do  as  well  as  I  could  upon  him  ; 
and  now  I  say  that  I  will  not  be  the  first  to  cry  'hold.' 
I  think  it  originated  with  the  Judge,  and  when  he  quits,  I 
probably  will.  But  I  shall  not  ask  any  favors  at  all.  He 
asks  me,  or  he  asks  the  audience,  if  I  wish  to  push  this 
matter  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulty.  I  tell  him,  no. 
He  did  not  make  a  mistake,  in  one  of  his  early  speeches, 
when  he  called  me  an  '  amiable '  man,  though  perhaps  he 
did  when  he  called  me  an  '  intelligent '  man.  It  really 
hurts  me  very  much  to  suppose  that  I  have  wronged  any- 
body on  earth.  I  again  tell  him,  no  !  I  very  much  prefer, 
when  this  canvass  shall  be  over,  however  it  may  result, 
that  we  at  least  part  without  any  bitter  recollections  of 
personal  difficulties. 

"  The  Judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Galesburgh,  says 
that  I  was  pushing  this  matter  to  a  personal  difficulty,  to 
avoid  the  responsibility  for  the  enormity  of  my  principles. 
I  say  to  the  Judge  and  this  audience  now,  that  I  will  again 


Debate  309 

state  our  principles  as  well  as  I  hastily  can  in  all  their 
enormity,  and  if  the  Judge  hereafter  chooses  to  confine 
himself  to  a  war  upon  these  principles,  he  will  probably 
not  find  me  departing  from  the  same  course."^ 

With  these  models  of  personal  dignity  contrast  the 
following  extract  from  the  speech  by  Senator  Pettit 
in  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  June  26,  1854:  — 

''  Now,  sir,  to  give  this  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence any  other  construction  than  that  which  I  have 
given  it,  is  an  evident,  a  self-evident,  a  palpable  lie.  What 
is  the  language  ?  That  '  all  men  are  created  equal.'  Are 
they  created  equally  tall,  equally  broad,  equally  long, 
equally  short  ?  Are  they  created  politically  equal  ?  Are 
they  created  physically  equal  ?  Are  they  created  mentally 
equal  ?  .Are  they  created  morally  equal  ?  .  .  .  I  ask  the 
chair,  then,  whether  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Sumner),  with  his  odium  on  his  lips,  is  the  equal  of  his 
revolutionary  sires  ?  Is  he  the  equal  of  Adams,  of  Han- 
cock, of  Warren,  who  was  the  first  martyr  in  the  great 
cause  of  liberty,  of  freedom,  and  of  union  ?  Is  he  the 
equal  of  these  men  ?  I  had  rather  ask  you,  Mr.  President, 
for  I  think  you  would  answer  '  no,'  and  he  might  answer 
'yes.'  ...  I  ask  that  Senator,  then,  or  I  ask  you,  sir, 
whether  that  Senator  is  the  equal  of  the  late  lamented 
Daniel  Webster,  who  preceded  him  here  long  years  ago  ? 
...  I  believe  as  a  mere  mental  man  —  and  I  speak  of  him 
in  no  other  capacity  —  Webster  had  not  his  equal  on  this 
continent,  if  he  had  in  Europe  or  on  any  other  continent. 
Is  that  Senator  his  equal  ?     He  might  as  well  say  that  the 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  p.  196.  Follett,  Foster  and  Co.,  Co- 
lumbus, i860. 


3IO  Argumentation  and  Debate 

jackal  is  the  equal  of  the  Hon,  or  that  the  buzzard  is  the 
equal  of  the  eagle. 

"  When  you,  sir  (addressing  Mr.  Sumner),  find  no  man 
beneath  you;  when  those  who  are  near  you  —  your  own 
class  of  men  —  can  find  no  man  beneath  you ;  when  you 
shall  claim  as  your  equal  the  man  who  rolls  in  the  gutter, 
whom  God  has  deprived  in  his  own  organization  and  crea- 
tion of  all  mental  power  and  capacity;  when  you  shall 
claim  that  he  who  wallows  in  the  gutter  with  the  vilest  and 
most  worthless  is  your  equal,  then  your  interpretation  of 
the  doctrine  is  true.  Let  me  go  farther.  If  the  Almighty 
ever  intended  to  create  the  Senator  the  equal  with  the 
mighty  and  lamented  Webster,  I  must  say  that  he  made  a 
gross  blunder  and  a  most  egregious  mistake.  .  .  .  Sir,  I 
am  inclined  to  believe  that,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  that 
Senator  cannot  find  one  beneath  himself,  taking  his  own 
declaration  to-day.  He  who  will  swear  here  in  this  body, 
appealing  to  God  for  the  truth  of  what  he  says,  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  and  then  boldly  proclaim 
that  he  will  not  do  it,  has  sunk,  in  my  estimation,  to  a 
depth  of  humiliation  and  degradation  which  it  would  not 
be  enviable  for  the  veriest  serf  or  the  lowest  of  God's 
creatures  to  occupy.  It  may  be  in  that  point  of  view  the 
Senator  regards  all  others  as  his  equals ;  but  there  are 
some  who  are  not  willing  to  regard  that  Senator  as  their 
equal,  and  who  will  never  be  coerced  into  any  such  admis- 
sion." ^ 

The  difference  betw^een  these  two  speeches  is 
the  difference  between  gentlemanly  self-control  and 
coarse  vituperation.  A  debater  must  never  allow 
himself,  no  matter  how  great  the  provocation,  to  be 
carried  over  the  bounds  that  confine  the  gentleman ; 

1  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  28,  Part  II,  p.  1518. 


Debate  311 

coarseness,  even  though  it  appear  but  for  a  moment, 
is  always  reactionary.  Coarseness  in  debate  is  most 
often  a  matter  of  loss  of  temper.  A  man  of  low  char- 
acter may  be  expected  to  show  forth  his  nature  at 
any  time ;  but  for  any  high-minded  man,  the  thing 
that  usually  brings  him  to  grief  is  the  loss  of  his 
temper.  When  he  is  involved  in  personal  conflict,  a 
debater  must  always  have  a  smile  —  a  good-humored 
smile  —  ready  on  his  lips. 

Good  humor  is  even  more  necessary  if  one  is  to  use 
sarcasm  or  ridicule.  The  line  must  not  be  drawn  so 
strictly  against  these  weapons  as  against  personali- 
ties pure  and  simple.  Sarcasm  in  a  skilful  hand  is 
formidable,  and  ridicule  can  often  win  a  point  where 
nothing  else  would  avail.  But  it  must  always  be  re- 
membered that  these  are  light  arms.  They  are  fine- 
wrought,  flexible  foils,  and  they  must  be  wielded  with 
a  light  hand.  They  are  not  suited  for  the  slashing 
and  cutting  of  broad-sword  play.  To  fence  with  them 
a  man  must  be  quick,  light  of  hand,  and,  above  all, 
cool  and  self-controlled.  Some  men  cannot  use  sar- 
casm and  ridicule  at  all,  and  no  man  can  afford  to 
use  them  carelessly.  Ill  temper  is  both  careless  and 
clumsy.  It  always  results  in  a  wild  aim  and  looks 
like  foul  play. 

Sarcasm  and  ridicule  are  most  effective  when  di- 
rected against  conceit  and  affectation.  A  speaker 
who  allows  his  conceit  to  rise  to  the  surface,  or  who 
assumes  a  tone  of  grandiloquence  or  bombast,  has 
exposed  a  weak  spot  in  his  armor.     And  there  is  no 


312  Argiimejitation  and  Debate 

weapon  that  will  so  readily  find  the  spot  and  strike 
through  it  as  one  of  these  light  side-arms  of  oratory. 
The  following  is  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the 
use  of  ridicule  that  can  be  found  in  American  oratory. 
It  is  so  interesting  and  so  worthy  of  study  with  re- 
spect to  its  general  tone,  its  vivid  rhetoric,  and  its 
telling  choice  of  figures  of  speech  as  to  justify  the 
giving  of  the  passage  nearly  in  full.  A  certain  Gen- 
eral Crary,  on  February  14,  1840,  in  the  debate  in  the 
House  on  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  attacked  General 
William  Henry  Harrison  for  alleged  deficiencies  as  a 
military  commander,  severely  criticising  his  conduct 
of  the  battle  of  Tippecanoe  and  of  various  other 
campaigns.  Thomas  Corwin  of  Ohio  replied  in  a 
speech  of  which  the  following  is  a  part.  Mr.  Crary 
was  so  overwhelmed  that  John  Quincy  Adams,  a  few 
days  after,  referred  to  him  as  "  the  late  Mr.  Crary." 

"  In  all  other  countries,  and  in  all  former  times,  a 
gentleman  who  would  either  speak  or  be  listened  to  on 
the  subject  of  war,  involving  subtle  criticisms  and  strategy, 
and  careful  reviews  of  marches,  sieges,  battles,  regular 
and  casual,  and  irregular  onslaughts,  would  be  required 
to  show,  first,  that  he  had  studied  much,  investigated  fully, 
and  digested  the  science  and  history  of  his  subject.  But 
here,  sir,  no  such  painful  preparation  is  required ;  witness 
the  gentleman  from  Michigan  !  He  has  announced  to 
the  House  that  he  is  a  militia  general  on  the  peace  estab- 
lishment! That  he  is  a  lawyer  we  know,  tolerably  well 
read  in  Tidd's  '  Practice  '  and  Espinasse's  *  Nisi  Prius.' 
These  studies,  so  happily  adapted  to  the  subject  of  war, 
with  an  appointment  in  the  militia  in  time  of  peace,  fur- 


Debate  313 

nish  him  at  once  with  all  the  knowledge  necessary  to 
discourse  to  us,  as  from  high  authority,  upon  all  the  mys- 
teries of  the  *  trade  of  death.'  Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  it 
must  occur  to  every  one,  that  we,  to  whom  these  questions 
are  submitted  and  these  military  criticisms  are  addressed, 
being  all  colonels  at  least,  and  most  of  us,  like  the  gentle- 
man himself,  brigadiers,  are,  of  all  conceivable  tribunals, 
best  qualified  to  decide  any  nice  points  connected  with 
military  science.  I  hope  the  House  will  not  be  alarmed 
with  the  impression  that  I  am  about  to  discuss  one  or  the 
other  of  the  military  questions  now  before  us  at  length, 
but  I  wish  to  submit  a  remark  or  two,  by  way  of  prepar- 
ing us  for  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  merits  of  the  dis- 
course we  have  heard.  I  trust  we  are  all  brother-officers, 
that  the  gentleman  from  Michigan,  and  the  two  hundred 
and  forty  colonels  or  generals  of  this  honorable  House, 
will  receive  what  I  have  to  say  as  coming  from  an  old 
brother  in  arms,  and  addressed  to  them  in  a  spirit  of 
candor, 

^'  *  Such  as  becometh  comrades  free, 
Reposing  after  victory.'' 

"  Sir,  we  all  know  the  military  studies  of  the  military 
gentleman  from  Michigan  before  he  was  promoted.  I 
take  it  to  be  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  had  pe- 
rused with  great  care  the  title-page  of  *  Baron  Steuben.' 
Nay,  I  go  further;  as  the  gentleman  has  incidentally 
assured  us  that  he  is  prone  to  look  into  musty  and  neg- 
lected volumes,  I  venture  to  assert,  without  vouching  in 
the  least  from  personal  knowledge,  that  he  has  prosecuted 
his  researches  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  know  that  the  rear 
rank  stands  right  behind  the  front.  Tfiis,  I  think,  is 
fairly  inferable  from  what  I  understood  him  to  say  of  the 
two  lines  of  encampment  at  Tippecanoe.  Thus  we  see, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  gentleman  from  Michigan,  being  a 


314  Argumentation  and  Debate 

militia  general,  as  he  has  told  us,  his  brother  officers,  in 
that  simple  statement  has  revealed  the  glorious  history 
of  toils,  privations,  sacrifices,  and  bloody  scenes,  through 
which,  we  know  from  experience  and  observation,  a  militia 
officer,  in  time  of  peace,  is  sure  to  pass.  We  all  in  fancy 
now  see  the  gentleman  from  Michigan  in  that  most  dan- 
gerous and  glorious  event  in  the  life  of  a  militia  general 
on  the  peace  establishment — a  parade  day!  That  day, 
for  which  all  the  other  days  of  his  life  seem  to  have  been 
made.  We  can  see  the  troops  in  motion  —  umbrellas, 
hoes,  and  axe-handles,  and  other  like  deadly  implements 
of  war,  overshadowing  all  the  fields,  when  lo  1  the  leader 
of  the  host  approaches  I 

"  '■  Far  off  his  coming  shines ! ' 

His  plume,  which,  after  the  fashion  of  the  great  Bourbon, 
is  of  awful  length,  and  reads  its  doleful  history  in  the 
bereaved  necks  and  bosoms  of  forty  neighboring  hen- 
roosts. Like  the  great  Suwaroff,  he  seems  somewhat 
careless  in  forms  or  points  of  dress  ;  hence  his  epaulettes 
may  be  on  his  shoulders,  back,  or  sides,  but  still  gleam- 
ing, gloriously  gleaming,  in  the  sun.  Mounted  he  is,  too, 
»let  it  not  be  forgotten.  Need  I  describe  to  the  colonels 
and  generals  of  this  honorable  House  the  steeds  which 
heroes  bestride  on  these  occasions  ?  No  1  I  see  the  mem- 
ory of  other  days  is  with  you.  You  see  before  you  the 
gentleman  from  Michigan,  mounted  on  his  crop-eared, 
bushy-tailed  mare,  the  singular  obliquity  of  whose  hinder 
limbs  is  best  described  by  that  most  expressive  phrase, 
'  sickle  hams  '  —  for  height  just  fourteen  hands,  *  all  told ' ; 
yes,  sir;  there  you  see  his  '  steed  that  laughs  at  the  shak- 
ing of  the  spear ' ;  that  is  his  war  horse,  '  whose  neck  is 
clothed  in  thunder.'  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  glowing 
descriptions  in  history  of  Alexander  the  Great  and  his 


Debate  315 

war  horse  Bucephalus,  at  the  head  of  the  invincible  Mace- 
donian phalanx ;  but,  sir,  such  are  the  improvements  of 
modem  times,  that  every  one  must  see  that  our  militia 
general,  with  his  crop-eared  mare  with  bushy  tail  and 
sickle  hams,  would  totally  frighten  off  a  battle-field  a  hun- 
dred Alexanders.  But,  sir,  to  the  history  of  the  parade 
day.  The  general,  thus  mounted  and  equipped,  is  in  the 
field  and  ready  for  action.  On  the  eve  of  some  desperate 
enterprise,  such  as  giving  order  to  shoulder  arms,  it  may 
be,  there  occurs  a  crisis,  one  of  those  accidents  of  war, 
which  no  sagacity  could  foresee  nor  prevent.  A  cloud 
rises  and  passes  over  the  sun  !  Here  is  an  occasion  for 
the  display  of  that  greatest  of  all  traits  in  the  history  of  a 
commander  —  the  tact  which  enables  him  to  seize  upon 
and  turn  to  good  account  unlooked-for  events  as  they  arise. 
Now  for  the  caution  wherewith  the  Roman  Fabius  foiled 
the  skill  and  courage  of  Hannibal !  A  retreat  is  ordered, 
and  troops  and  general,  in  a  twinkling,  are  found  safely 
bivouacked  in  a  neighboring  grocery."^ 

With  respect  to  all  three  of  the  methods  mentioned 
above,  viz.,  personalities,  sarcasm,  and  ridicule,  it  is 
to  be  remarked  that  they  are  only  occasional  weap- 
ons. They  are  not  substitutes  for  proof  or  for  the 
substance  of  argument.  They  are  merely  auxiliaries. 
It  is  often  easier  to  malign  or  laugh  at  an  opponent 
than  to  answer  him,  but  it  does  not  accomplish  the 
same  end. 

D.  The  argumentum  ad  hominem  belongs  in  de- 
bate more  truly  than  elsewhere.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  in  debate  the  speakers  generally  stand  as  per- 

1  Hardwicke,  "History  of  Oratory  and  Orators,"  pp.  368-371, 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1896. 


3l6  Argumentation  and  Debate 

sonally  responsible  advocates  of  the  opinions  they 
espouse.  Consequently,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  a 
speaker  is  inconsistent  in  his  opinions,  the  shot  often 
strikes  home.  If  it  is  proved  that  a  speaker  upholds 
views  that  he  formerly  condemned,  or  that  his  actions 
belie  his  words,  his  motives  are  clearly  impeached 
and  his  sincerity  or  veracity  is  opened  to  suspicion. 
The  argument  may  be  used  as  a  means  of  ridicule, 
making  light  of  the  pretended  earnestness  of  an 
opponent,  or  it  may  be  used  as  the  foundation  of  a 
serious  charge  of  fraud  or  hypocrisy.  Lincoln  used 
it  in  his  speech  at  Chicago,  July  lO,  to  ridicule  an 
excess  of  oratorical  enthusiasm  on  the  part  of  Sena- 
tor Douglas.  Speaking  of  the  Dred  Scott  Decision, 
he  said :  — 

"  The  sacredness  that  Judge  Douglas  throws  around 
this  decision,  is  a  degree  of  sacredness  that  has  never 
been  before  thrown  around  any  other  decision.  I  have 
never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  .  .  .  But  Judge  Douglas 
will  have  it  that  all  hands  must  take  this  extraordinary 
decision,  made  under  these  extraordinary  circumstances, 
and  give  their  vote  in  Congress  in  accordance  with  it, 
yield  to  it^  and  obey  it  in  every  possible  sense.  Circum- 
stances alter  cases.  Do  not  gentlemen  here  remember 
the  case  of  that  same  Supreme  Court,  some  twenty-five  or 
thirty  years  ago,  deciding  that  a  National  Bank  was  con- 
stitutional ?  I  ask  if  somebody  does  not  remember  that 
a  National  Bank  was  declared  to  be  constitutional  ?  Such 
is  the  truth,  whether  it  be  remembered  or  not.  The 
Bank  charter  ran  out,  and  a  recharter  was  granted  by 
Congress.  That  recharter  was  laid  before  General  Jack- 
son.    It  was  urged  upon  him,  when  he  denied  the  con- 


Debate  317 

stitutionality  of  the  Bank,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided  that  it  was  constitutional ;  and  that  General  Jack- 
son then  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  no  right  to  lay 
down  a  rule  to  govern  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment, the  members  of  which  had  sworn  to  support  the 
Constitution  —  that  each  member  had  sworn  to  support 
that  Constitution  as  he  understood  it.  I  will  venture  here 
to  say,  that  I  have  heard  Judge  Douglas  say  that  he 
approved  of  General  Jackson  for  that  act.  What  has 
now  become  of  all  his  tirade  about  'resistance  to  the 
Supreme  Court '?"  ^ 

Senator  Hayne,  in  his  second  speech  on  the  Foote 
Resolution,  used  the  argument  differently,  rather  mak- 
ing it  the  foundation  of  a  serious  charge  of  inconsist- 
ency and  apostasy :  — 

"  I  am  not  at  all  surprised,  however,  at  the  aversion  of 
the  gentleman  to  the  very  name  of  tariff.  I  doubt  not 
that  it  must  always  bring  up  some  very  unpleasant  recol- 
lections to  his  mind.  If  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  was  a  leading  actor  at  a  great 
meeting  got  up  in  Boston  in  1820  against  the  tariff.  It 
has  generally  been  supposed  that  he  drew  up  the  resolu- 
tions adopted  by  that  meeting,  denouncing  the  tariff  sys- 
tem as  unequal,  oppressive,  and  unjust,  and,  if  I  am  not 
much  mistaken,  denying  its  constitutionaHty.  Certain  it 
is  that  the  gentleman  made  a  speech  on  that  occasion  in 
support  of  those  resolutions,  denouncing  the  system  in  no 
very  measured  terms ;  and,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  call- 
ing its  constitutionality  in  question.  I  regret  that  I  have 
not  been  able  to  lay  my  hands  on  those  proceedings,  but 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  pp.  20-21.  Follett,  Foster  and  Co., 
Columbus,  i860. 


3i8  Argumentation  and  Debate 

I  have  seen  them,  and  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  their  char- 
acter. At  that  time,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
entertained  the  very  sentiments  in  relation  to  the  tariff 
which  the  South  now  entertains.  We  next  find  the  Sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  expressing  his  opinion  on  the 
tariff  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from 
the  city  of  Boston  in  1824.  On  that  occasion,  sir,  the 
gentleman  assumed  a  position  which  commanded  the  re- 
spect and  admiration  of  his  country.  He  stood  forth  the 
powerful  and  fearless  champion  of  free  trade.  He  met, 
in  that  conflict,  the  advocates  of  restriction  and  monop- 
oly, and  they  '  fled  from  before  his  face.'  With  a  profound 
sagacity,  a  fulness  of  knowledge,  and  a  richness  of  illus- 
tration that  has  never  been  surpassed,  he  maintained  and 
established  the  principles  of  commercial  freedom  on  a 
foundation  never  to  be  shaken.  .  .  .  Then  it  was  that 
he  erected  to  free  trade  a  beautiful  and  enduring  monu- 
ment, and  'inscribed  the  marble  with  his  name.'  It  is 
with  pain  and  regret  that  I  now  go  forward  to  the  next 
great  era  in  the  political  life  of  that  gentleman,  when  he 
was  found  upon  the  floor  supporting,  advocating,  and 
finally  voting  for  the  tariff  of  1828 — that  'bill  of  abomi- 
nations.' By  that  act,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
has  destroyed  the  labors  of  his  whole  life,  and  given  a 
wound  to  the  cause  of  free  trade,  never  to  be  healed. 
Sir,  when  I  recollect  the  position  which  that  gentleman 
once  occupied,  and  that  which  he  now  holds  in  public 
estimation,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  it  is  not  at  all  sur- 
prising that  the  tariff  should  be  hateful  to  his  ears.  Sir, 
if  I  had  erected  to  my  own  fame  so  proud  a  monument  as 
that  which  the  gentleman  built  in  1824,  and  I  could  have 
been  tempted  to  destroy  it  with  my  own  hands,  I  should 
hate  the  voice  that  should  ring  '  the  accursed  tariff '  in  my 
ears.     I  doubt  not  the  gentleman  feels  very  much  in  rela- 


Debate     -  319 

tion  to  the  tariff  as  a  certain  knight  did  to  '  instinct,'  and 
with  him  would  be  disposed  to  exclaim  — 

" '  Ah,  no  more  of  that,  Hal,  an'  thou  lov'st  me.' "  ^ 

It  is  evident  that  in  some  kinds  of  debate  the  argn- 
mentum  ad  hominem  finds  no  place.  In  intercolle- 
giate debate,  or  before  a  jury,  it  is  rarely  opportune, 
because  the  speakers  in  these  situations  do  not  stand 
as  sponsors  for  what  they  say.  They  are  merely  in- 
struments of  competition  or  of  justice,  and  so  are  not 
open  to  personal  attacks. 

E.  A  common  stratagem  of  debate  is  the  asking 
of  questions.  By  this  is  not  meant  the  figure  of 
speech  known  as  the  "  rhetorical  question."  The 
stratagem  consists  rather  in  directly  asking  questions 
that  really  call  for  an  answer.  The  purposes  of  re- 
sorting to  this  stratagem  are  three  :  (i)  to  compel  an 
opponent  to  take  a  definite  position  on  some  issue, 

(2)  to  tempt  him  to  waste  time  on  trivial  matters,  or 

(3)  to  force  him  into  a  dilemma,  where  he  may  be 
caught  whichever  way  he  answers. 

(i)  To  accompHsh  the  first  of  these  aims,  the  value > 
of  a  question  is  obvious.  A  debater  often  encounters 
an  opponent  whose  power  lies  less  in  his  ability  to 
prove  an  issue  than  in  Jiis  ability  to  evade  it.  Such 
an  opponent  is  facile  in  shifting  ground  and  can 
readily  becloud  the  point  in  dispute.  He  is  like  a 
cuttlefish  that  squirts  the  water  full  of  a  black  ex- 
cretion and  escapes  in  the  darkness.      In  exposing 

^  Debates  in  Congress,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  p.  49.  Gales  and  Seaton, 
Washington,  1830. 


320  Argumentation  and  Debate 

and  cornering  such  a  man,  there  is  hardly  a  better 
way  to  "  pin  him  down  "  than  to  compress  the  point 
in  issue  into  a  single,  clear,  direct  question  and  de- 
mand an  answer.  The  question,  of  course,  needs  to 
be  framed  in  such  a  way  that  it  cannot  be  readily 
evaded  or  distorted  from  its  intended  meaning  ;  also, 
in  asking  the  question,  it  should  be  presented  in  such 
a  forcible  and  imperative  manner  that  a  failure  to 
answer  will  be  unsafe.  But,  with  these  precautions, 
in  the  face  of  a  question  clearly  worded  and  strongly 
put,  an  opponent  will  find  it  difficult  to  evade  the 
issue. 

(2)  To  propound  questions  for  an  opponent  to 
waste  time  upon  is  good  tactics  under  some  circum- 
stances. A  question  put  with  an  air  of  taunt  or 
challenge  is  a  great  temptation ;  an  inexperienced  or 
impulsive  debater  may  often  be  drawn  into  the  trap 
of  answering  at  any  cost.  The  audience  must,  how- 
ever, be  made  to  believe  the  question  is  really  impor- 
tant, and  that  a  failure  to  answer  must  be  a  sign  of 
weakness.  This  trick  is  sometimes  tried  in  intercol- 
legiate debate,  where  the  time  is  limited  and  a  waste 
of  even  a  minute  is  a  serious  matter.  A  debater 
should  realize  the  nature  of  this  stratagem,  not  only 
in  order  to  be  able  to  try  it  himself,  but  in  order  to  be 
able  to  appreciate  it  when  he  is  the  intended  victim. 
There  is  one  rule  that  is  truly  a  golden  rule  for  an 
inexperienced  debater,  "  Stick  to  the  point." 

There  are  three  ways  of  evading  such  questions. 
One  way  is  to  ignore  them,  a  method  which  is  some- 


Debate  321 

times  not  safe  if  the  questions  have  been  well  pre- 
sented, and  if  the  audience  seems  to  be  impressed 
with  them.  Another  is  to  avoid  them  by  false  or 
ambiguous  answers,  a  method  which  calls  for  much 
tact  and  shrewdness.  The  third,  is  to  expose  the 
motives  of  the  propounder  of  the  questions,  to  show 
that  the  questions  are  not  important,  but  merely  in- 
tended as  snares. 

(3)  The  third  purpose  that  may  be  served  by  the 
asking  of  a  question  is  that  of  forcing  an  opponent 
into  a  dilemma,  where  he  may  be  caught,  however 
he  may  answer.  Lincoln,  with  great  shrewdness, 
drove  Senator  Douglas  into  such  a  situation  in  the 
joint  debates  of  1858.  Briefly,  the  circumstances 
were  these  :  Lincoln  assumed  at  the  start  a  position 
of  hostility  to  the  Dred  Scott  Decision,  which  declared, 
in  substance,  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  any  of  the  territories.  Senator  Douglas 
attacked  Mr.  Lincoln  bitterly  for  his  position  in  the 
matter,  declaring  that  any  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  final  and  sacred,  and  that  any  man  who 
rejected  or  denounced  such  a  decision  was  "  unpatri- 
otic, disloyal,  revolutionary,"  etc.  It  also  happened 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  charged  Senator  Douglas  with 
being  concerned  with  certain  other  Democrats  in  a 
conspiracy  to  "  nationalize  slavery."  He  gave  evi- 
dence tending  to  expose  such  a  conspiracy,  and 
showed  that  but  one  thing  was  wanted  to  make  it 
complete,  viz.,  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
declaring  that  a  state  of  the  Union  could  not  exclude 


322  Argumentation  and  Debate 

slavery  from  its  limits  ;  and  he  furthermore  charged 
Senator  Douglas  with  planning  and  working  to  pro- 
cure such  a  decision. 

Under  these  circumstances,  Mr.  Lincoln  pro- 
pounded the  following  question :  "  If  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  States 
cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in 
favor  of  acquiescing  in  it,  adopting  it,  and  following 
it  as  a  rule  of  political  action  .''  "  Senator  Douglas 
was  caught.  If  he  answered  in  the  affirmative,  he 
seemed  to  substantiate  the  charge  of  conspiracy  to 
get  such  a  decision,  and  gave  Mr.  Lincoln  an  oppor- 
tunity to  drive  home  his  attack ;  on  the  other  hand, 
if  he  answered  in  the  negative,  he  was  committing  the 
very  act  which  he  had  denounced  in  Mr.  Lincoln  as 
unpatriotic,  revolutionary,  and  heretical,  viz.,  oppos- 
ing a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  But  one  course 
was  open,  and  the  wily  debater  adopted  it :  he  evaded 
the  question.  In  his  speech  at  Freeport,  August  27, 
he  said  :  — 

"  The  third  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  presented  is,  if 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that 
a  State  of  this  Union  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  its  own 
limits,  will  I  submit  to  it?  I  am  amazed  that  Lincoln 
should  ask  such  a  question.  ["  A  schoolboy  knows  bet- 
ter."] Yes,  a  schoolboy  does  know  better.  Mr.  Lincoln's 
object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon  the  Supreme  Court. 
He  knows  that  there  never  was  but  one  man  in  America, 
claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence  or  decency,  who  ever 
for  a  moment  pretended  such  a  thing.  It  is  true  that  the 
Washington  Union,  in  an  article   published  on  the  17th 


Debate  323 

of  last  December,  did  put  forth  that  doctrine,  and  I 
denounced  the  article  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  in  a 
speech  which  Mr.  Lincoln  now  pretends  was  against  the 
President.  The  Union  had  claimed  that  slavery  had  a 
right  to  go  into  the  free  States,  and  that  any  provision  in 
the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  free  States  to  the  contrary 
were  null  and  void.  I  denounced  it  in  the  Senate,  as  I 
said  before,  and  I  was  the  first  man  who  did.  Lincoln's 
friends,  Trumbull,  and  Seward,  and  Hale,  and  Wilson, 
and  the  whole  black  Republican  side  of  the  Senate,  were 
silent.  They  left  it  to  me  to  denounce  it.  And  what  was 
the  reply  made  to  me  on  that  occasion  ?  Mr.  Toombs  of 
Georgia  got  up  and  undertook  to  lecture  me  on  the  ground 
that  I  ought  not  to  have  deemed  the  article  worthy  of 
notice,  and  ought  not  to  have  replied  to  it;  that  there 
was  not  one  man,  woman,  or  child  south  of  the  Potomac, 
in  any  slave  State,  who  did  not  repudiate  any  such  pre- 
tension. Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  that  reply  was  made  on 
the  spot,  and  yet  now  he  asks  this  question.  He  might  as 
well  ask  me,  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  should  steal  a  horse, 
would  I  sanction  it ;  and  it  would  be  as  genteel  in  me  to 
ask  him,  in  the  event  he  stole  a  horse,  what  ought  to  be 
done  with  him.  He  casts  an  imputation  upon  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  by  supposing  that  they  would 
violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  tell  him 
that  such  a  thing  is  not  possible.  It  would  be  an  act  of 
moral  treason  that  no  man  on  the  bench  could  ever  descend 
to.  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  would  never  in  his  partisan  feel- 
ings so  far  forget  what  was  right  as  to  be  guilty  of  such  an 
act."i 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  p.  96.     FoUett,  Foster  and  Co.,  Colum- 
bus, i860. 


324  Argumentation  and  Debate 

IV.    The  Conclusion 

With  respect  to  the  conclusion,  little  needs  to  be 
said  more  than  has  already  been  said  in  the  book  on 
Presentation. 

A.  The  importance  of  the  conclusion  in  debate  is 
obvious.  It  is  undoubtedly  an  advantage  to  be  so 
placed  as  to  be  able  to  direct  the  course  of  things  to 
come ;  but  it  is  a  greater  advantage  to  be  so  placed  as 
to  be  able  to  review  and  sum  up  the  things  that  are 
past.  To  the  last  speaker  is  given  the  opportunity 
of  leaving  his  interpretation  of  the  facts,  and  his  sum- 
mary of  the  important  points,  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
his  audience.  So  that  a  closing  speaker  is  even  better 
situated  than  an  opening  speaker,  to  obtain  the  accept- 
ance of  his  method  of  dividing  the  question  and  his 
statement  of  the  issues ;  that  is,  he  is  in  such  a  posi- 
tion that  he  can  finally  persuade  the  audience  to  look 
at  the  question  through  his  eyes.  Moreover,  on  any 
contested  point  he  has  the  privilege  of  the  last  word. 

Oftentimes  a  speaker,  if  he  knows  beforehand  that 
he  is  to  have  the  privilege  of  the  final  reply,  can  with 
good  effect  hold  his  fire  till  the  end  and  surprise  his 
enemy  with  new  arguments,  to  which  reply  is  thus 
impossible.  This  is  a  bit  of  strategy  that  can  be 
practisecl  in  many  situations.  For  example,  in  inter- 
collegiate or  interscholastic  debate,  or  any  similar 
prearranged  contest  where  the  number  and  order  of 
speakers  is  fixed,  it  is  not  unusual  that  one  side  keeps 
silence  on  some  point  in  the  discussion  till  its  last 


Debate  325 

rebuttal.  By  this  means  the  opposing  side  may  per- 
haps be  led  to  think  that  the  point  has  been  conceded 
and  so  be  tempted  to  keep  silence  themselves.  Again, 
it  is  a  wise  stratagem  when  a  speaker  feels  that  he 
has  the  weaker  end  of  the  proof  on  a  point :  if  he 
reveals  his  answer  too  early,  his  opponents  may  make 
a  rejoinder  and  lay  bare  the  weakness ;  but  by  wait- 
ing till  later  he  deprives  his  opponent  of  any 
chance  to  reply,  and  so  may  hope  to  conceal  his  de- 
ficiency and  make  his  own  proof  seem  plausible.  It 
will,  however,  be  kept  clearly  in  mind  that  what  is 
said  in  this  paragraph  refers  only  to  answers  that 
are  to  be  made  to  opponents*  arguments;  for  it  is 
generally  conceded  that  a  debater  ought  not  to  intro- 
duce new  positive  arguments  in  his  rebuttal. 

B,  From  the  viewpoint  of  conviction,  the  first  duty 
of  a  speaker  who  closes  the  argument  for  his  side 
of  the  case,  is  to  summarize -the  whole  proof.  We 
have  already  spoken  several  times  of  the  confusion 
natural  to  debate,  a  confusion  arising  from  the  rapid 
succession  of  arguments  and  evidence,  and  from  the 
conflicts,  crossings,  and  interminglings  of  the  proofs 
and  ideas  of  both  sides.  We  refer  to  it  again  only  to 
emphasize  the  value  of  concluding  summaries.  After 
an  audience  have  listened,  for  any  considerable  time, 
to  the  presentation  of  a  mass  of  heterogeneous  facts 
and  ideas,  they  need  to  have  their  conceptions  of  the 
case  as  a  whole  straightened  out  again,  and  to  have 
their  memories  refreshed  with  a  new  understanding 
of  the  points  that  are  important.     An  audience  can- 


326  Argumentation  and  Debate 

not  be  relied  on  to  carry  in  mind  to  the  end  the  things 
that  are  vital ;  their  vision  is  sure  to  become  clouded 
by  details,  and  they  turn  with  relief  to  a  man  who  will 
clear  up  matters  and  set  them  right.  For  this  reason 
the  audience  can  be  counted  on  to  give  careful  atten- 
tion to  a  concluding  summary,  and  so  they  are  more 
likely  to  remember  it  than  almost  anything  else  in 
the  debate.  The  desirability  of  the  summary  is  made 
greater  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  debate,  the  proof  of 
either  side  is  scattered  along  through  the  discussion ; 
it  consequently  becomes  necessary,  if  the  proof  is  to 
be  properly  unified,  that  these  broken  threads  be 
woven  together  at  the  end  by  a  summary. 

In  some  circumstances  a  mere  recapitulation  by  the 
last  speaker  is  not  enough.  In  debates  where  there 
is  "team-work,"  it  is  often  desirable  that  each  speaker 
in  his  conclusion  should  summarize  what  has  pre- 
ceded. This  keeps  the  audience  always  in  close 
touch  with  the  proof,  and  gives  them  an  understand- 
ing of  just  what  is  being  accomplished  at  each  for- 
ward step;  then  when  the  end  is  finally  reached,  the 
case,  as  a  whole,  is  embedded  in  their  minds,  and  the 
final  summary  is  much  more  intelligible  and  effective. 

The  mistake  may  easily  be  made  of  making  a  sum- 
mary too  long  or  too  detailed.  To  be  effective  it 
needs  always  to  be  direct,  incisive,  and  as  brief  as  is 
consistent  with  clearness.  To  be  diffuse  or  tediously 
technical  destroys  the  aggressive  force  that  is  indis- 
pensable. Any  kind  of  a  recapitulation  must  be  as 
sharp,  as  firm,  and  as  bo4d  as  the  blows  of  the  ham- 


Debate  327 

mer  on  white-hot  iron.  Such  a  conclusion  is  exem- 
plified in  the  following  peroration  of  a  speech  by  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  in  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons 
on  the  bill  relieving  the  disabilities  of  the  Jews.  It  is 
especially  to  be  noticed  for  its  skilful  repetition  and 
emphasis  of  the  central  idea  of  the  whole  speech, 
viz.,  forgiveness  and  reparation  for  past  wrongs : — 

"  It  is  for  these  reasons  —  because  I  believe  it  to  be  in 
conformity  with  the  enlarged  and  comprehensive  spirit  of 
the  British  Constitution — that  these  disqualifications  should 
no  longer  exist ;  because  I  rejoice  in  the  opportunity  of 
making  reparation  for  the  injuries  and  persecutions  of 
former  times ;  because  I  think  the  Jew  has  fairly  earned 
the  privileges  which  it  is  proposed  to  extend  to  him,  by 
patience  and  forbearance,  by  tried  fidelity  and  loyalty; 
but  above  all,  because  I  am  a  member  of  a  Christian 
people,  because  I  am  a  member  of  a  Christian  legislature, 
I  will  perform  an  act  which  I  believe  to  be  in  strict  con- 
formity with  the  spirit  and  precepts  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. We  are  commanded  by  that  religion,  as  the 
condition  of  our  own  forgiveness,  to  forgive  those  who 
have  trespassed  against  us.  That  duty  is  not  in  this 
case  imposed  upon  us  ;  but  there  is  another  duty  as  sacred 
in  point  of  moral  obligation,  and  more  trying  to  human 
pride,  namely,  that  we  should  forgive  those  against  whom 
we  have  trespassed.  Sir,  I  shall  give  my  cordial  support 
to  the  bill  before  the  House."  ^ 

C.  Of  all  the  forms  of  summaries  that  may  be  used, 
the  most  effective  in  debate  is  that  which  in  an  ear- 
lier part  we  have  called  "  to  amplify  and  diminish." 

1  "  World's  Orators  "  (England),  Part  III,  p.  211.  G.  P.  Putnam's 
Sons,  1900. 


328  Argumentation  and  Debate 

The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  debate  is  the 
directness  of  conflict  between  the  opposing  sides. 
The  audience  is  kept  constantly  balancing  one  argu- 
ment against  another  and  swaying  back  and  forth 
with  the  struggle  of  the  contending  factions.  Con- 
sequently in  the  end  their  judgment  is  always  rela- 
tive. It  is  not  that  one  side  is  strong  or  weak,  but 
that  it  is  on  the  whole  stronger  or  weaker  than  the 
other.  So  it  is  clearly  wiser  to  assist  the  audience  in 
this  comparison,  and  try  to  make  them  see  the  rela- 
tive strength  of  the  two  sides  as  you  wish  them 
to  see  it,  than  to  take  the  chance  of  leaving  them 
to  make  the  comparison  by  themselves,  according  to 
whatever  standards  may  happen  to  be  uppermost  in 
their  minds. 

Sometimes,  if  a  speaker  feels  that  he  has  the 
weaker  side  of  the  proof,  it  is  more  politic  for  him  to 
leave  his  hearers  in  uncertainty,  and  to  cover  up  the 
logical  conclusion  that  would  result  from  such  a  com- 
parison. This  is  good  tactics,  for  example,  when  a 
man  adopts  a  policy  of  obstruction,  i.e.  when  he  finds 
that  he  has  not  a  strong  positive  case,  and  so  resorts 
to  the  trick  of  lying  in  wait  and  throwing  up  objec- 
tions against  his  opponent.  If  all  his  objections  were 
carefully  analyzed  and  logically  summed  up,  they 
would  not  really  amount  to  much ;  so  his  only  hope 
lies  in  the  general  discredit  he  may  throw  upon  the 
proof  against  him.  In  such  a  situation  he  would 
suffer  by  a  contrast  of  point  with  point,  and  he  would 
gain  by  leaving  matters  in  confusion.     But,  presum- 


Debate  329 

ing  that  a  speaker  has  a  fair  side  of  the  argument, 
to  amplify  and  diminish  is  advisable.  It  makes  the 
proof  complete  and  presents  definitely  a  statement  of 
the  conclusion  that  must  be  drawn.  It  is  a  final 
charge,  where  all  the  forces  of  your  own  side  are 
gathered  together  and  thrown  directly  against  the 
enemy.  A  good  illustration  of  its  effectiveness  is 
found  in  the  conclusion  of  Senator  Douglas's  speech 
at  Chicago,  July  9,  1858  :  — 

"  Thus  you  see,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  the  issues  be- 
tween Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  as  respective  candidates 
for  the  U.  S.  Senate,  as  made  up,  are  direct,  unequivocal, 
and  irreconcilable.  He  goes  for  uniformity  in  our  domes- 
tic institutions,  for  a  war  of  sections,  until  one  or  the  other 
shall  be  subdued.  I  go  for  the  great  principle  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for 
themselves. 

"  On  the  other  point,  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  for  a  warfare  on 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  because  of  their 
judicial  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  I  yield  obedience 
to  the  decision  of  that  court  —  to  the  final  determination 
of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  known  to  our  constitution. 
He  objects  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  does  not 
put  the  negro  in  the  possession  of  the  rights  of  citizenship 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to 
negro  equality.  I  repeat  that  this  nation  is  a  white  people 
—  a  people  composed  of  European  descendants  —  a  people 
that  have  established  this  government  for  themselves  and 
their  posterity,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving  not  only 
the  purity  of  the  blood,  but  the  purity  of  the  government 
from  any  mixture  or  amalgamation  with  inferior  races.  I 
have  seen  the  effects  of  this  mixture  of  superior  and  in- 
ferior races  —  this  amalgamation  of  white  men  and  Indians 


330  Argumentatio7t  and  Debate 

and  negroes ;  we  have  seen  it  in  Mexico,  in  Central 
America,  in  South  America,  and  in  all  the  Spanish- 
American  States,  and  its  result  has  been  degeneration, 
demoralization,  and  degradation  below  the  capacity  for 
self-government. 

"  I  am  opposed  to  taking  any  step  that  recognizes  the 
negro  man  or  the  Indian  as  the  equal  of  the  white  man. 
I  am  opposed  to  giving  him  a  voice  in  the  administration 
of  the  government.  I  would  extend  to  the  negro,  and  the 
Indian,  and  to  all  dependent  races  every  right,  every 
privilege,  and  every  immunity  consistent  with  the  safety 
and  welfare  of  the  white  races ;  but  equality  they  never 
should  have,  either  political  or  social,  or  in  any  other  respect 
whatever. 

"  My  friends,  you  see  that  the  issues  are  distinctly 
drawn.  I  stand  by  the  same  platform  that  I  have  so  often 
proclaimed  to  you  and  to  the  people  of  Illinois  heretofore. 
I  stand  by  the  Democratic  organization,  yield  obedience 
to  its  usages,  and  support  its  regular  nominations.  I  in- 
dorse and  approve  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  I  adhere 
to  and  intend  to  carry  out,  as  part  of  that  platform,  the 
great  principle  of  self-government,  which  recognizes  the 
right  of  the  people  in  each  State  and  Territory  to  decide 
for  themselves  their  domestic  institutions.  In  other  words, 
if  the  Lecompton  issue  shall  arise  again,  you  have  only  to 
turn  back  and  see  where  you  have  found  me  during  the 
last  six  months,  and  then  rest  assured  that  you  will  find 
me  in  the  same  position,  battling  for  the  same  principle, 
and  vindicating  it  from  assault  from  whatever  quarter  it 
may  come,  so  long  as  I  have  the  power  to  do  it."^ 

In  this  summary  the  speaker  has  stated  with  fair 
accuracy  the  points  of  difference  between  him  and 

^  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  pp.  12-13.  FoUett,  Foster  and  Co., 
Columbus,  i860. 


Debate  331 

his  opponent,  but  he  has  so  stated  them  as  to  present 
his  own  side  always  in  the  better  light.  He  places 
the  arguments  side  by  side,  but  he  states  the  points 
in  a  manner  favorable  to  himself ;  and  at  the  close  he 
drives  home  the  fact  and  the  idea  that  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  his  own  case,  thus  leaving  in  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  an  impression  that,  on  the  whole,  their 
votes  and  their  support  should  be  given  to  his  cause. 

V.   Presentation 

A.  Every  public  speaker,  at  the  very  beginning  of 
his  career,  is  confronted  with  the  questions :  "  How 
much  shall  I  write  ?  How  far  shall  I  put  my  prepa- 
ration into  written  form  ? "  This  is  an  important 
question :  habits  ill-formed  in  this  particular  have 
been  responsible  for  the  failures  of  many  preachers, 
lecturers,  and  advocates;  on  the  other  hand,  correct 
habits  are  equally  potent  for  success.  Moreover, 
every  beginner  should  realize  that  strength  or  weak- 
ness in  this  respect  is  truly  a  matter  of  habit,  for 
practices  adopted  early  grow  fast  and  soon  become 
difficult  to  abandon.  Even  at  the  cost  of  hard  work 
and  discouraging  failures,  a  young  debater  should 
begin  right. 

When  we  come  to  consider  this  question,  we  find 
there  are  two  extremes :  the  first  consists  in  writ- 
ing everything  and  reading  from  the  manuscript; 
the  other  consists  in  writing  nothing  and  speaking 
wholly  without  notes.  For  a  beginner,  neither  of 
these  extremes  merits  serious  consideration ;  they  are 


332  Argumentation  and  Debate 

both  to  be  condemned.  Any  one  who  has  ever  heard 
a  preacher  read  his  sermons,  sentence  by  sentence, 
from  a  manuscript,  need  not  be  told  that  in  the  scrim- 
mage of  a  debate  such  a  practice  would  be  fatal. 
This  method  lacks  all  the  spontaneity,  all  the  power 
of  adaptation  to  circumstances,  all  the  aggressiveness 
that  is  essential.  The  opposite  plan  is  hardly  less 
objectionable.  The  power  of  extemporaneous  speech 
is  not  to  be  disparaged,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  many  veteran  speakers  can  debate  a  proposition 
with  very  brief  preparation  and  from  a  very  few 
notes ;  but  such  powers  are  begotten  of  long  practice 
and  self-cultivation ;  for  a  beginner  to  make  such  men 
the  models  for  his  own  early  efforts  is  foolhardy,  and 
always  has  unfortunate  results.  To  make  such  a 
venture  at  the  start,  would  be  like  attempting  to  learn 
to  swim  by  jumping  into  mid-ocean  at  the  first  lesson  ; 
the  well-nigh  certain  result  is  to  be  lost  in  a  flood  of 
bad  habits.  From  such  beginnings  are  produced  the 
rambling,  incoherent,  inconclusive  speakers  that  are 
always  inferior  or  mediocre  in  debate.  The  weak- 
ness of  such  arguers  is  that  they  are  wholly  lacking 
in  the  element  of  form :  they  never  learn  how  to  con- 
serve their  strength  to  spend  it  to  some  purpose ; 
they  waste  their  forces  because  they  have  never 
learned  how  to  marshal  and  direct  them. 

The  practice  of  writing  is  a  great  benefit  to  any 
speaker.  Especially  to  a  debater,  in  the  early 
stages  of  his  career,  the  writing  of  briefs  and  fin- 
ished  speeches  is   of  the  greatest  value.     Enough 


Debate  333 

has  already  been  said  in  the  preceding  parts  of  this 
book  to  make  it  evident  that  argumentation  is  a 
distinct  art  with  rules  and  methods  peculiar  to  itself. 
Upon  the  understanding  of  these  methods  and  the 
observation  of  these  rules  success  depends,  and  in 
bringing  one's  self  to  comprehend  these  various 
principles,  and  to  create  habits  in  conformity  with 
them,  there  is  no  practice  so  good  as  constant  writ- 
ing. In  preparing  a  careful  and  detailed  brief,  which 
shall  present  all  of  his  proof  in  its  full  strength 
to  a  reader,  a  student  must  at  every  step,  from  the 
statement  of  the  proposition  to  the  final  summary, 
be  conscious  of  the  principles  he  is  following  and 
of  his  reasons  for  doing  so ;  he  has  time  and  oppor- 
tunity to  realize  just  why  he  introduces  his  proof  in 
a  certain  way,  why  he  selects  certain  evidence,  why  he 
arranges  his  material  in  accordance  with  a  certain  plan. 

Furthermore,  what  is  written  can  be  subsequently 
examined  for  defects  and  virtues.  In  this  way  a 
student  can  detect  his  weaknesses  and  set  himself 
to  remedy  them. 

Finally,  a  person  who  is  writing  thinks  more 
closely  and  concisely,  and  uses  more  exact  language 
than  one  who  is  speaking,  and  so  develops  the 
qualities  of  straightforward,  logical  reasoning,  and 
of  clear,  accurate  use  of  words.  It  does  not  follow 
that  a  debater  should  write  all  he  says,  or  that  he 
should  always  keep  up  the  practice  of  writing  as  a 
means  of  self-training.  Study  and  experience  gradu- 
ally turn  these  qualities  mentioned  above  into  habits 


334  Argumentation  and  Debate 

of  mind,  and  the  habits  once  formed  are  a  permanent 
asset.  But,  for  the  debater  in  the  formative  period 
of  his  career,  the  regular  writing  of  briefs  and 
speeches  is  invaluable. 

Lying  between  the  two  extreme  methods  mentioned 
above  are  two  other  possible  methods  of  presentation 
that  deserve  consideration.  Both  are  more  rational 
than  either  of  the  other  two.  The  first  consists  in 
writing  down  and  memorizing  speeches ;  the  second 
consists  in  speaking  from  a  brief  or  a  short  outline. 

Considered  as  a  method  to  be  adopted  permanently 
and  for  regular  use,  memorizing  must  undoubtedly 
be  condemned.  The  most  obvious  defect  of  such 
a  practice  is  the  lack  of  adaptability  to  circumstances. 
We  have  already  seen  that  a  large  element  of  debat- 
ing power  lies  in  the  ability  to  appreciate  and  grapple 
with  situations;  but  a  speaker  who  has  learned  the 
sentences  he  is  to  deliver  is  powerless  if  anything 
unexpected  arises,  or  if  his  written  speech  does  not 
happen  to  fit  the  occasion.  He  is  liable  to  find  him- 
self delivering  a  demonstrative  oration  instead  of  an 
argument.  Again,  the  memoriter  method  involves  a 
great  physical  strain.  It  demands  the  most  severe 
mental  and  nervous  exertion  in  committing  the 
speech,  in  worrying  over  the  chances  of  forgetting, 
and  in  delivery.  So  serious  a  strain  does  it  require, 
that  a  continuance  of  such  practices  tends  to  diminish 
spontaneity  and  quickness  of  thought,  which  gradu- 
ally impairs  the  fineness  and  clearness  of  the  whole 
mind. 


Debate  335 

Memorizing  also  prevents,  in  a  great  degree,  the 
necessary  closeness  of  contact  between  speaker  and 
audience.  It  demands  a  remarkable  degree  of  elocu- 
tionary skill,  to  infuse  into  committed  passages  the 
variety  and  the  spontaneity  of  extempore  speaking. 
The  memoriter  speaker  all  too  easily  becomes  an 
actor,  posing  and  soliloquizing  —  an  attitude  fatal 
to  power  in  debate,  for  it  destroys  the  leadership 
which  we  have  seen  is  indispensable  in  the  work  of 
persuasion.  Then,  too,  all  the  inspiration  that  should 
come  from  the  reflex  action  of  the  audience  is  lost. 
The  declaimer,  instead  of  being  stirred  and  directed 
by  any  manifestations  of  thought  or  emotion  on  the 
part  of  his  hearers,  is  liable  to  be  confused  by  such 
influences,  and  is  constantly  fearful  of  their  appearance. 

It  is  possible  to  combine  the  memorizing  method 
with  the  extemporaneous,  and  under  some  conditions 
the  combination  may  be  effective.  The  peroration 
of  an  otherwise  extempore  speech  may  often  be 
memorized  with  good  results.  A  beginner  may  find 
this  a  helpful  means  of  weaning  himself  from  decla- 
mation, and  taking  on  the  strength  of  extemporaneous 
speech.  But  as  a  permanent  practice,  by  which  the 
attempt  is  made  to  mix  the  two  and  deceive  an 
audience  into  thinking  the  whole  to  be  extempore,  it 
is  a  failure.  An  excellent  criticism  is  given  by  Dr. 
James  M.  Buckley,  in  his  book  on  "  Extemporaneous 
Oratory  for  Professional  and  Amateur  Speakers  "  — 
a  book  to  be  commended  to  every  public  speaker  or 
student  of  oratory  :  — 


336  Argmnentatian  and  Debate 

"A  joint  use  of  the  extemporaneous  and  the  recitative 
has  marked  advantages,  and  is  to  be  commended  to  those 
who  cannot  trust  themselves  wholly  to  the  former.  But 
it  is  extremely  difficult  to  adjust  it  gracefully  and  force- 
fully. Transitions  of  style  are  usually  obvious,  extemporized 
portions  being  spoken  more  swiftly  or  more  slowly  than 
the  recited.  Emphasis  and  accent  are  different,  and  ges- 
ticulation undergoes  a  noticeable  change.  The  reciter  is 
prone  to  proceed  more  rapidly  than  when  he  extempo- 
rizes ;  at  other  times,  according  to  the  strength  of  his  mem- 
ory' or  his  excitability  when  uttering  words  not  previously 
prepared,  he  may  speak  more  slowly.  A  lawyer  delivered 
a  Fourth  of  July  oration,  in  preparation  for  which  he  had 
composed  perhaps  ten  epigrams  and  half  as  many  para- 
graphs, some  consisting  of  at  least  three  times  that  num- 
ber of  sentences,  and  had  committed  these  to  memory, 
expecting  to  extemporize  the  connective  tissue.  What  he 
had  learned  he  recited  perfectly;  what  he  extemporized 
he  delivered  under  slight  embarrassment,  and  his  course 
resembled  that  of  a  man  crossing  a  bridge,  some  of  the 
planks  of  which  were  weak  and  others  strong.  He  fairly 
leaped  when  he  came  to  one  of  his  committed  paragraphs, 
and  it  was  obvious  that  he  rejoiced  in  spirit,  but  more  than 
once  his  hesitation  and  awkwardness  were  pitiable. 

"  The  highest  gift  of  extemporization  is  usually  like  a 
spirited  steed,  which  cannot  be  driven  double,  or  like  a 
jealous  maiden,  who  will  not  brook  divided  attention."^ 

In  spite  of  the  criticisms  given  above,  memoriz- 
ing is  not  an  unmitigated  evil  for  a  young  debater. 
Nearly  every  speaker  begins  his  training  by  the  re- 
citing of  declamations.     He  takes  this  means  to  learn 

1  Buckley,  "  Extemporaneous  Oratory,"  pp.  25-26.  Eaton  and 
Mains,  1898. 


Debate  337 

the  principles  and  form  some  of  the  habits  of  elocu- 
tion ;  in  this  way  he  helps  himself  to  overcome  his 
diffidence  and  avert  impending  stage  fright.  He 
may  make  a  similar  use  of  memorizing  when  he 
first  tempts  the  fortunes  of  debate.  But  he  must 
not  allow  himself  to  forget  that  it  is  a  temporary 
expedient.  He  will  surely  be  confronted  with  a 
temptation.  He  may  find  that  in  these  small  efforts 
he  is  winning  full  success,  and  he  may  fear  to  leave 
this  seemingly  firm  ground  and  venture  into  the  un- 
certainty of  extemporizing.  The  longer  memorizing 
is  continued,  the  harder  it  is  to  break  from  its  bonds, 
and  no  ambitious  beginner  should  allow  himself  to 
keep  up  the  practice  for  any  considerable  length  of 
time. 

Extemporaneous  oratory  should  undoubtedly  be 
the  ideal  of  a  debater.  A  distinction  should  always 
be  made  between  extemporaneous  speaking  and  im- 
promptu speaking.  An  impromptu  speech  is  wholly 
unpremeditated :  the  speaker  rises  on  the  moment 
and  talks  off-hand,  not  having  deliberated  on  the  sub- 
ject at  all;  But  "extemporaneous,"  as  the  term  is 
now  used,  is  a  name  applied  to  any  speech  for  which 
the  language  and  details  of  rhetorical  form  have  not 
been  previously  prepared.  The  speaker  is  always 
assumed  to  have  deliberated  at  length  on  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  he  may  or  may  not  use  notes,  provided  the 
notes  are  not  read  or  recited. 

The  advantages  of  this  extempore  method  are 
many  and  great.     The  first  advantage  —  and  first  in 


33^  Argumentation  and  Debate 

order  of  importance — is  the  power  of  adaptation 
which  it  gives  to  the  speaker.  The  debater  who  de- 
pends upon  nothing  but  his  ever  present  power  of 
making  up  his  words  as  he  goes,  can  at  any  time  omit 
any  of  his  ideas  or  arguments  that  the  circumstances 
make  unnecessary;  he  can  put  into  his  proof  any- 
thing that  an  unexpected  turn  of  affairs  requires ;  he 
can,  if  expedient,  adopt  a  wholly  new  line  of  demon- 
stration. Furthermore,  the  extemporizer  can  adapt 
himself  to  the  mood  of  his  audience  :  if  he  sees  they 
do  not  understand  a  point,  he  can  stop  to  explain  and 
enforce  it  upon  them ;  if  they  seem  personally  hostile 
or  inattentive,  he  can  resort  to  persuasion  to  remedy 
the  situation.  At  all  times,  he  can  hold  his  position 
as  leader  of  the  assembly  both  in  thought  and  in 
feeling. 

Then,  too,  extemporizing  carries  with  it  great  physi- 
cal advantages.  "  The  voice  of  the  speaker  is  deeper, 
stronger,  and  more  flexible,  and  the  effort  required  to 
produce  it  much  less.  The  head  being  held  erect, 
there  is  no  constriction  of  the  throat,  the  lungs  are 
fully  expanded,  and  the  respiratory  muscles  are  free 
to  perform  their  functions."  ^  Again,  the  inspiration 
of  sympathy  from  the  audience  comes  with  its  full 
power  only  to  the  extemporizer.  William  Pitt  truly 
said  that  "  eloquence  is  not  in  the  man ;  it  is  in  the 
assembly."  The  response  of  hearer  to  speaker  may 
disturb  a  declaimer,  but  it  gives  added  strength  to  the 

1  Buckley,  "Extemporaneous  Oratory," p.  13.  Eaton  and  Mains, 
1898. 


Debate  339 

extemporizer,  helping   him   to   mount  to   eloquence 
with  a  greater  boldness  and  self-confidence. 

Extemporaneous  speaking,  with  all  the  great  bene- 
fits that  flow  from  it,  is  attended  with  dangers.  There 
are  two  that  a  young  speaker  needs  particularly  to 
guard  against.  The  first  is  exaggeration.  The  youth- 
ful orator,  to  whom  word  and  idea  usually  come  with 
tantalizing  difficulty,  when  at  length  he  begins  to  feel 
the  flow  of  words  coming  full  and  free  to  his  lips,  is 
too  liable  to  be  caught  up  in  the  onward  rush  and  car- 
ried much  farther  than  he  intends  ;  swollen  by  the  ris- 
ing enthusiasm,  the  tide  of  eloquence  mounts  higher 
and  higher  till  it  sweeps  over  the  bounds  of  accuracy, 
even  of  truthfulness,  and  turns  into  a  flood  of  hyper- 
bole. Then  it  is  that  a  speaker  makes  statements 
that  he  is  afterward  forced  to  take  back,  calls  his 
opponent  bad  names,  and  in  general  forgets  his  self- 
control.  Lord  Chatham,  with  all  his  long  experience 
and  constant  practice,  said  that  he  did  not  dare  to 
speak  extemporaneously  with  a  state  secret  lurking 
in  his  mind,  "for  in  the  SibyUine  frenzy  of  his  ora- 
tory he  knew  not  what  he  said."  ^  A  common  form 
of  misrepresentation  consists  in  stating  evidence  care- 
lessly. If  a  speaker  has  in  his  mind  the  general 
nature  and  effect  of  certain  facts,  but  has  not  decided 
just  how  to  put  them  into  words,  he  finds  himself 
sorely  tempted  to  color  the  facts  with  a  little  rhetori- 
cal flourish,  to  make  a  "  few  "  into  a  "  great  many,"  to 
augment  "  a  score  "  into  "  hundreds,"  or  to  transform 

1  Matthews,  "  Orators  and  Oratory,"  p.  109. 


340  Argumentation  and  Debate 

"  often  "  into  "  always."  Such  exaggeration  may,  with 
constant  practice,  become  something  of  a  habit,  so 
that  the  tendency  should  be  repressed  at  the  start. 

A  second  danger  is  that  of  awkward  repetition.  If 
a  speaker  permits  himself  to  become  indolent  in  his 
choice  of  phrases,  he  will  surely  find  that  certain 
combinations  of  words  will  be  constantly  coming  to 
his  lips  till  they  become  tiresome.  This  often  results 
in  a  confusion  of  thoughts  :  one  stock  phrase  is  made 
to  represent  several  different  ideas ;  two  ideas  that 
are  similar  but  not  exactly  alike  are  both  expressed 
in  these  same  hackneyed  terms,  simply  because  the 
speaker  is  too  careless  to  know  the  distinction,  or  has 
formed  the  habit  of  stating  things  with  approximate 
truth.  This  danger,  of  course,  threatens  particularly 
a  speaker  whose  range  of  words  is  small;  and  for  such 
a  man  the  fault  may  be  overcome  by  resorting  to  the 
dictionary,  to  the  reading  of  good  literature  and  good 
orations,  or  to  any  expedient  for  the  increase  of  the 
vocabulary.  The  same  fault  appears  in  the  awkward 
repetition  of  introductory  and  transitional  phrases, 
such  as :  "  Let  us  next  consider,"  "  My  next  point 
is,"  "In  the  next  place,"  "Along  this  same  line," 
etc.  A  speaker  composing  as  he  goes,  does  not  real- 
ize how  often  these  phrases  are  reiterated ;  but  it  is 
noticeable  to  the  audience. 

Another  form  of  the  same  danger  lies  in  the  fault 
of  explaining  or  reasoning  out  everything  in  the  same 
way.  It  is  very  easy  to  adopt  a  sort  of  logical  for- 
mula in  accordance  with  which  argument  after  argu- 


Debate  34 1 

ment  is  unfolded.  A  certain  mode  of  reasoning  in 
his  own  mind  is  peculiar  to  the  speaker,  and  when 
before  an  audience  it  is  natural  to  explain  the  matter 
to  others  just  as  he  explained  it  to  himself.  The 
effect  of  such  repetition  is  much  the  same  as  that 
which  a  reader  gets,  from  page  after  page  of  syllo- 
gisms in  a  treatise  on  formal  logic.  The  reasoning 
is  clear  and  accurate,  but  uninteresting  and  tiresome. 
Such  dangers  as  these,  though  they  must  surely 
be  met  with,  should  not  be  a  source  of  discourage- 
ment. The  dangers  attendant  upon  other  methods 
of  public  speaking  are  equally  great  and  usually  far 
more  formidable.  The  young  extemporizer  to  whom 
the  beginning  seems  hard,  may  well  bear  in  mind  an 
example  cited  by  Dr.  Buckley  from  Mr.  Gilchrist's 
*'  Life  of  Richard  Cobden  "  :  — 

"  I  saw  Richard  Cobden  sitting  beside  John  Bright  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  Perhaps  no  more  persuasive 
speaker,  whose  power  depended  largely  upon  a  clear  and 
earnest  statement  of  facts,  has  ever  sat  in  the  British 
Parliament.  Speaking  of  the  Treaty  of  Commerce  with 
France  in  i860,  Mr.  Gladstone  six  years  later  said,  '  I 
don't  believe  that  the  man  breathed  upon  earth  at  that 
epoch,  or  now  breathes  upon  earth,  that  could  have 
effected  that  great  measure  with  the  single  exception  of 
Mr.  Cobden.' 

"His  was  the  triumph  of  the  pure  extemporizer.  In 
1864  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Delane,  editor  of  the  London  Times: — 

" '  It  is  known  that  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  writing  a 
word  beforehand  of  what  I  speak  in  public.  Like  other 
speakers,  practice  has  given  me  as  perfect  self-possession 


342  Argumentation  and  Debate 

in  the  presence  of  an  audience  as  if  I  were  writing  in  my 
closet.  Now  my  ever  constant  and  overruling  thought 
while  addressing  a  pubHc  meeting  —  the  only  necessity 
which  long  experience  of  the  arts  of  the  controversialist 
has  impressed  upon  my  mind  —  is  to  avoid  the  possibility 
of  being  misrepresented,  and  prevent  my  opponents  from 
raising  a  false  issue,  a  trick  as  old  as  Aristotle.' 

"  Yet  this  master  persuader  of  hard-headed  business 
men  was  nervous  and  confused  in  his  first  speech ;  in 
fact,  he  practically  broke  down,  and  the  chairman  had  to 
apologize  for  him.  For  some  time  afterward  he  was  so 
discouraged  by  his  maiden  effort  that  if  he  had  been 
allowed  to  follow  the  bent  of  his  inclination,  he  would 
never  again  have  appeared  as  a  public  speaker."^ 

We  have  said  that  in  extemporaneous  oratory  a 
speaker  may  or  may  not  use  notes,  provided  the 
notes  are  neither  read  nor  recited.  For  a  beginner 
in  any  kind  of  oratory  it  is  desirable  that  some  notes 
be  used.  It  takes  a  mature  mind  and  much  experi- 
ence, to  enable  a  man  to  carry  the  complete  outline 
of  a  speech,  in  such  a  way  as  to  guard  against  the 
forgetting  of  points,  on  the  one  hand,  and  wander- 
ing from  the  subject,  on  the  other.  And  particu- 
larly in  debate,  where  the  situation  is  ever  changing 
and  where  so  much  depends  upon  the  circumstances 
of  the  moment,  it  is  doubtful  if  even  a  veteran  can 
work  effectively  without  notes. 

Undoubtedly  a  brief  is  the  best  form  of  notes  in 
debate.    It  presents  to  the  speaker's  eye,  more  clearly 

1  Buckley,  "  Extemporaneous  Oratory,"  pp.  369-370.  Eaton  and 
Mains,  1898. 


Debate  343 

than  any  other  kind  of  outline,  the  relation  and  the 
sequence  of  proofs  as  they  should  be  set  forth,  and  so 
helps  to  create  a  good  logical  and  rhetorical  frame- 
work. The  numbering  and  lettering  of  a  well-made 
brief  also  enable  a  debater  to  gather  more  from  a 
single  glance  at  the  paper,  than  he  could  from  notes 
made  in  any  other  form.  He  can  "  find  his  place " 
more  easily,  and  see  more  quickly  what  point  of  the 
proof  he  has  reached. 

However,  it  should  be  understood  that  the  use  of  a 
brief,  as  that  word  is  used  in  Chapter  IX,  is  not  to  be 
recommended.  As  the  term  "  brief  "  is  used  there,  it 
means  an  outline  into  which  are  put  all  the  details  of 
arguments,  evidence,  and  explanation  of  the  question. 
To  use  such  an  outline  is  more  of  the  nature  of  read- 
ing than  of  extemporizing,  and  is  open  to  many  of 
the  serious  objections  against  the  reading  method. 
The  outline  for  use  in  debate  should  be  much  shorter, 
containing  little  more  than,  perhaps,  the  issues, 
the  main  headings,  a  few  important  subheadings, 
and  notes  for  refutation.  To  use  a  more  extended 
form  of  notes  is  to  sacrifice  the  virtues  of  the 
extemporaneous  method. 

VI.    Refutation 

With  respect  to  refutation,  aside  from  the  work  of 
preparation  which  has  already  been  discussed,  the 
first  and  foremost  of  all  precepts  for  the  beginner 
to  take  to  heart,  and  for  every  debater,  however 
experienced,  always  to  remember,  is :  — 


344  Argumentation  aiid  Debate  ^ 

A.  Answer  the  whole  case  of  the  other  side.  One 
of  the  fatal  weaknesses  in  the  power  of  any  de- 
bater, and  a  weakness  that  is  almost  invariably  dis- 
played by  a  beginner,  is  the  weakness  of  attacking 
only  a  part  of  an  opponent's  proof.  It  is  easiest 
in  refutation  to  pick  out  the  weak  points  of  the 
opposition  and  attack  them,  leaving  the  more  for- 
midable points  standing :  it  demands  less  careful 
preparation,  and  a  less  accurate  analysis  of  the  case 
of  the  other  side;  and  it  often  seems  to  make  the 
greatest  impression  on  the  audience.  Consequently 
there  is  a  temptation  to  pick  up  the  more  obvious 
errors  of  an  opponent  and  dramatically  expose  them, 
or  to  seize  upon  some  foolish  word  or  phrase  and 
ridicule  it ;  it  creates  a  laugh  or  a  burst  of  applause, 
whereas,  in  an  attempt  to  refute  any  of  the  stronger 
proofs,  success  is  not  so  easy,  for  the  audience,  feel- 
ing that  there  are  two  sides  to  the  issue,  are  not  so 
readily  convinced.  But  in  the  end,  the  audience  will 
adhere  to  the  man  who  has  made  them  believe  that 
his  case,  as  a  whole,  is  the  stronger.  Consequently, 
to  achieve  final  success,  the  debater  must  make  them 
see,  not  that  he  has  destroyed  an  argument  here  and 
there,  but  that  he  has  overwhelmed  the  proof  against 
him,  in  its  entirety. 

In  order  to  make  such  an  attack  upon  the  whole 
case  of  the  other  side,  two  things  are  necessary: 
(i)  the  speaker  must  analyze  the  entire  proof  of  his 
opponents  and  pick  out  the  few  fundamental  points 
in  it,  and  (2)  he  must  make  it  clear  to  the  audience 


Debate  345 

that  he  is  thus  meeting  the  whole  of  the  case  against 
him. 

It  is  necessary  to  determine  upon  the  few  funda- 
mental points  of  an  opponent's  proof,  for  the  same 
reason  that  it  is  necessary  to  determine  upon  those  of 
one's  own.  It  is  necessary  for  the  sake  of  clearness : 
to  give  the  same  attention  to  the  large  and  the  small 
points  of  the  other  side  perplexes  a  hearer  in  his 
understanding  of  the  question  as  a  whole.  It  is 
necessary  for  the  sake  of  emphasis :  it  is  only  by 
neglecting  or  slighting  trivial  facts  and  dwelling 
upon  the  important  ones,  that  the  vital  points  of  the 
question  can  be  brought  out  into  a  clear  light.  Fur- 
thermore, to  give  attention  to  the  facts  of  secondary 
importance  is  a  waste  of  time.  If  the  main  headings 
of  an  opponent's  brief  are  destroyed,  his  subheadings 
fall  with  them  and  so  do  not  need  special  rebuttal. 
These  main  headings  must  be  answered  if  an  oppo- 
nent is  to  be  defeated  at  all,  and,  if  they  are  answered, 
to  do  more  is  superfluous. 

But  it  is  not  enough  merely  to  pick  out  in  one's 
own  mind  the  important  points  of  the  other  side,  and 
proceed  to  refute  them.  To  give  the  rebuttal  its  full 
effect  requires  that  the  audience  be  made  to  see  that 
the  speaker  is  attacking  the  entire  proof  in  opposition, 
and  that,  if  he  is  successful,  he  has  won  his  case.  To 
do  this  requires  that  the  arguments  to  be  answered 
shall  be  stated  clearly  beforehand,  and  that  they  shall 
be  explained  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  evident  that 
in  them  is  contained  the  whole  case  of  the  other  side. 


346  Argumentation  and  Debate 

For  example,  Webster,  in  his  Reply  to  Hayne  in  the 
debate  on  the  Foote  Resolution,  devoted  the  body 
of  his  speech  to  the  refutation  of  Senator  Hayne's 
theory  of  states'  rights  under  the  Constitution.  Be- 
fore entering  on  this  task,  he  set  forth  in  full  the 
case  presented  by  Senator  Hayne,  stating  all  the 
essential  propositions  of  his  doctrine,  and  making 
it  evident  that  taken  together  they  embraced  every- 
thing that  demanded  refutation  :  — 

"  There  yet  remains  to  be  performed  by  far  the  most 
grave  and  important  duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on 
me  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend,  what  I 
conceive  to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  constitution  under 
which  we  are  here  assembled.  I  might  well  have  desired 
that  so  weighty  a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  and 
abler  hands.  I  could  have  wished  that  it  should  have 
been  executed  by  those  whose  character  and  experience 
give  weight  and  influence  to  their  opinions,  such  as  cannot 
possibly  belong  to  mine.  But,  sir,  I  have  met  the  occa- 
sion, not  sought  it ;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state  my  own 
sentiments,  without  challenging  for  them  any  particular 
regard,  with  studied  plainness,  and  as  much  precision  as 
possible. 

"  I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  State  Legis- 
latures to  interfere,  whenever,  in  their  judgment,  this  Gov- 
ernment transcends  its  constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest 
the  operation  of  its  laws. 

"  I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right  ex- 
isting under  the  constitution ;  not  as  a  right  to  overthrow 
it,  on  the  ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as  would  jus- 
tify violent  revolution. 


Debate  347 

"  I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part 
of  the  States,  thus  to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of  correct- 
ing the  exercise  of  power  by  the  General  Government,  of 
checking  it,  and  of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opin- 
ion of  the  extent  of  its  powers. 

"  I  understand  him  to  maintain  that  the  ultimate  power 
of  judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  own  authority 
is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  General  Government,  or 
any  branch  of  it ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  States  may 
lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and  each  State  for  itself, 
whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment transcends  its  power. 

"  I  understand  him  to  insist  that,  if  the  exigency  of  the 
case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  State  Government,  require  it, 
such  State  Government  may,  by  its  own  sovereign  author- 
ity, annul  an  act  of  the  General  Government,  which  it 
deems  plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional."^ 

It  is  often  desirable,  as  a  means  of  making  it  evi- 
dent that  the  whole  case  of  the  other  side  is  being 
attacked,  to  analyze  openly  the  proof  of  an  opponent 
and  explain  just  what  his  arguments  as  a  whole 
amount  to.  For  example,  a  speaker  in  rebuttal  might 
well  begin  in  some  such  manner  as  this :  "  Every- 
thing of  any  importance  that  my  opponent  has  tried 
to  prove  in  this  question  may  be  reduced  to  these 
three  propositions,  viz.,  first,  etc.,  second,  etc.,  third ;  " 
"  my  opponent's  case,  as  far  as  it  has  any  bearing  on 
the  question  we  have  in  hand,  can  be  stated  in  his 
owji  words,  as  follows,"  etc.  In  some  such  way  the 
audience  may  be  made  to  have  faith  in  the  speaker's 

1  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  pp.  72-73.  Gales  and 
Seaton,  1830. 


34^  ArgiLmentation  and  Debate 

sincerity,  and  in  the  importance  of  his  efforts  in  re- 
buttal, and  so  be  made  ready  to  acknowledge  the  full 
force  of  his  refutation. 

B.  The  natural  tendency  of  young  debaters  in  refu- 
tation is  toward  carelessness  of  method.  It  is  true, 
even  of  more  experienced  men,  that  speakers  who 
are  very  careful  in  arranging  and  presenting  their 
original  proofs,  when  they  come  to  the  work  of  refu- 
tation, forget  themselves  and  degenerate  into  a  weak 
informality,  wandering  from  the  point  and  mixing  up 
their  materials  without  regard  for  clearness  of  state- 
ment, the  proper  arrangement  of  evidence,  or  the 
natural  sequence  of  the  proofs.  Refutation  is  no 
more  informal  than  any  other  kind  of  demonstration, 
and  requires  just  as  much  care  in  presentation.  The 
materials  for  it  must  be  selected  as  judiciously, 
arranged  as  logically,  and  stated  as  clearly.  A 
young  debater  does  well  to  watch  himself  consciously 
till  he  has  formed  firm  habits  of  the  right  kind. 

C.  It  has  already  been  suggested  that  it  is  well  in 
a  debate  where  a  man  may  speak  more  than  once  to 
hold  material  in  reserve  for  rebuttal.  It  is,  of  course, 
possible  to  repeat  or  refer  to  arguments  and  evidence 
already  given.  But  the  repetition  of  old  materials  is 
never  quite  so  strong  as  the  production  of  new.  So 
that  it  is  often  good  strategy,  even  at  the  cost  of 
taking  something  away  from  the  strength  of  a  first 
speech,  to  hold  back  some  evidence  and  a  few  good 
arguments  as  a  reserve. 

D.  Refutation  is   not  treated  more  fully  in   this 


Debate  349 

chapter,  not  because  it  is  less  important,  but  because 
it  has  been  sufficiently  discussed  in  a  previous  chap- 
ter. Refutation  is  the  very  essence  of  debate,  and 
the  power  to  refute  well  is  one  to  be  sought  by  a 
debater  as  earnestly  as  he  would  seek  any  single 
power  that  a  public  speaker  may  hope   to   possess. 

VII.  Practice 

"  If  you  want  to  be  a  good  public  speaker,  when- 
ever any  one  is  fool  enough  to  ask  you  to  speak,  you 
be  fool  enough  to  do  it."  Such  was  the  advice  of  a 
friend  to  Edward  Everett  Hale  at  the  opening  of  his 
career.  There  is  a  wealth  of  wisdom  in  the  words. 
Many  of  the  essential  qualities  of  a  good  debater  can 
be  acquired  in  one  way  only — practice.  As  well  might 
the  athlete  hope  to  become  a  winner  in  the  race  by 
poring  over  athletic  treatises,  as  the  student  to  be- 
come a  debater  by  merely  studying  the  principles  of 
argumentation  and  practising  with  the  pen.  Self- 
confidence,  the  ability  to  take  advantage  of  peculiar 
circumstances,  the  self-control  that  is  necessary  to 
the  control  of  others,  that  indefinable  power  of  fusing 
into  one  the  mind  of  speaker  and  hearer,  —  these 
come  only  from  the  industrious,  continued  effort  on 
the  public  platform  which  is  well  summed  up  in  the 
one  word  — practice. 


APPENDIX   A 

The  following  suggestions  are  appended  in  the  hope 
that  they  may  be  helpful  to  teachers,  especially  to  those 
who  are  introducing  courses  in  argumentation  and  debate. 

Length  of  Course. 

Two  hours  per  week  for  one  year  has  been  found  a 
very  convenient  length  for  a  course  of  this  kind.  The 
length,  however,  may  easily  be  varied  according  to  the 
inclination  of  the  instructor  and  the  time  at  his  disposal. 

Division  of  the  Course. 

The  first  part  of  the  course,  preferably  one  semester, 
should  be  given  to  the  study  of  the  principles  of  argu- 
mentation, with  the  use  of  text-book,  supplemented  by 
lectures  and  various  written  exercises  (see  Appendix  B). 
The  second  semester  may  be  given  entirely  to  oral  debate 
with  the  requisite  written  preparation. 

Subjects  for  Debate. 

A  method  of  securing  a  list  of  live  subjects  for  use  in 
debate,  which  has  proved  practicable,  is  to  have  each 
student  bring  into  class  a  list  of  three  or  four  subjects, 
properly  stated  in  the  form  of  propositions,  and  from  all 
the  lists  for  the  instructor  to  select  and  post  on  the  bulle- 
tin board  those  from  which  the  students  may  choose  for 
their  work  in  brief-drawing,  for  the  writing  of  forensics,  or 
for  debate. 

351 


352  Argumentation  and  Debate 

Incidental  Suggestions. 

The  plan  of  scheduling  men  for  debates,  and  the  arrange- 
ments to  be  followed  in  presenting  briefs  for  the  criticism 
of  the  instructor,  must  be  worked  out  according  to  the 
conditions  at  a  given  place  and  time. 

It  is  very  desirable  that  each  man  on  a  given  debate 
have  an  opportunity  to  speak,  not  only  in  positive  proof, 
but  also  in  rebuttal ;  and  also  that  a  chance  be  offered  to 
the  members  of  the  class  to  discuss  the  question  from  the 
floor. 

As  to  whether  the  debaters  should  speak  from  a  com- 
pletely written  forensic  or  from  a  brief,  there  is  a  great 
difference  of  opinion ;  but,  after  years  of  experiment  and 
observation,  the  writers  of  this  book  are  fully  convinced 
that,  for  most  men,  debating  from  a  brief  is  the  better 
method.  The  very  nature  of  debate  seems  to  call  for 
this.  There  must  be  spontaneity,  a  great  readiness  to 
take  advantage  of  a  peculiar  situation,  and  an  assurance 
of  meeting  squarely  the  opponents.  But  all  this  seems 
hardly  possible  when  the  debate  has  been  fully  written 
beforehand.  It  is,  however,  fully  recognized  that  no 
absolute  method  can  be  suggested  that  will  fit  every 
case,  but  the  instructor  can  readily  modify  his  method 
to  make  it  applicable  to  exceptional  men. 

A  student  "  critic  "  of  a  given  debate,  or  a  board  of 
award  appointed  from  the  class  by  the  instructor,  or  a 
vote  of  the  class  as  to  who  are  the  winners,  may  be 
introduced  occasionally,  with  mutual  benefit. 

The  practice  of  asking  the  debater  questions  while  he  is 
doing  his  work,  whenever  there  is  any  doubt  regarding 
the  point  he  is  trying  to  make,  has  a  most  enlivening  and 
invigorating  influence  on  the  whole  class. 


APPENDIX    B 

Below  are  given  a  number  of  suggestions  for  exercises 
that  may  be  used  in  connection  with  the  text,  while  the 
class  is  studying  the  principles  of  argumentation. 

SUGGESTIONS   FOR  EXERCISES 
The  Proposition. 

It  is  by  no  means  an  easy  task  to  persuade  a  class  of 
beginners  in  argumentation  that  the  statement  of  the 
proposition  is  particularly  important.  The  mere  declara- 
tion that  such  is  the  case  will  not  suffice.  One  way  that 
has  been  of  great  help  in  emphasizing  this  fact  is  as  fol- 
lows :  Each  man  in  class  is  asked  to  write  out  a  propo- 
sition ;  then  he  is,  in  turn,  called  upon  to  read  aloud 
his  proposition,  which  is  freely  criticised  by  students  and 
instructor.  In  this  way  each  one  receives  benefit  from  the 
experience  of  all  the  rest. 

The  student  may  then  be  asked  to  bring,  at  the  next 
session,  a  written  definition  of  all  terms  in  his  proposition 
that  would  need  to  be  defined  before  he  could  proceed  to 
his  argument. 

The  Issues. 

The  very  best  exercise  in  this  connection  is  the  analysis  of 
argumentative  masterpieces  —  preferably  legal  addresses 
—  and  the  presenting,  in  written  form,  of  a  careful  state- 
ment of  the  issues  involved  in  the  discussion.  This  may 
be  followed  by  practice  for  the  student  in  stating  the  issues 
2  A  "353 


354  Argumentation  and  Debate 

on  assigned  subjects,  and  by  a  careful  explanation  of  the 
processes  of  finding  the  issues,  by  the  instructor. 

Evidence. 

Before  the  student  is  prepared  to  decide  intelligently 
what  kinds  of  evidence  he  would  better  use  in  a  given  case, 
or  to  test  thoroughly  either  his  own  evidence  or  that  of 
an  opponent,  he  will  probably  find  it  necessary  to  study 
the  methods  of  the  great  arguers  and  learn  what  are  their 
methods.  The  only  practicable  way  to  do  this  is  to  take 
the  speeches  themselves  and  analyze  them  carefully  with 
this  end  in  view.  In  John  Churton  Collins's  "  Swift's  Re- 
lationship to  Stella,"  as  found  in  J.  H.  Gardiner's  '■  The 
Forms  of  Prose  Literature,"  will  be  found  an  excellent 
selection,  to  be  used  especially  in  illustrating  the  various 
tests  that  may  be  applied  to  evidence. 

Arguments. 

The  attempt  to  understand  the  distinctions  between  the 
different  kinds  of  arguments  has  often  proved  to  be  the 
point  of  discouragement  to  the  student.  If  each  student 
is  asked  to  bring  into  class  an  example  of  the  argument 
from  antecedent  probability,  example,  and  sign,  and  he 
is  there  met  by  open  discussion  and  patient  explanation, 
there  is  little  danger  of  his  discouragement  becoming 
permanent. 

Brief-drawing. 

The  whole  work  in  the  principles  of  argumentation  finds 
its  centre  in  brief-drawing.  The  importance  of  study  and 
practice  at  this  point  cannot  be  overemphasized. 

An  exercise  that  has  proved  most  elucidating  is  this: 
After  the  student  has  been  over  the  text  and  secured  a 
more  or  less  vague  idea  of  what  it  is  to  draw  a  brief,  the 
instructor  will  take  a  simple  question  and  put  it  on  the 


Appendix  B  355 

blackboard,  developing  the  brief  before  the  class,  with 
full  opportunity  for  questions  and  suggestions.  He  will 
probably  find  it  best  to  confine  his  work,  —  one  day  to 
the  introduction,  and  the  next  to  the  discussion.  The 
conclusion  of  the  brief  presents  no  serious  difiiculty. 

The  drawing  of  briefs  from  speeches,  and  the  writing  of 
briefs  on  assigned  subjects,  will  of  course  be  given  in  such 
measure  as  the  length  of  the  course  will  permit. 

In  order  to  show  the  importance  of  a  brief  in  argumen- 
tative composition,  it  is  sometimes  desirable  to  have  the 
students  write  a  complete  argument  —  forensic — before 
they  take  up  the  subject  of  brief-drawing ;  then,  after  it 
has  been  taken  up,  write  another  forensic  from  the  brief 
on  the  same  subject,  and  make  a  comparison  of  the  first 
and  second  forensics. 

When  students  present  briefs  in  class,  it  is  often  advis- 
able to  have  them  exchange  papers  with  each  other,  and 
criticise  each  other's  work,  marking  their  suggestions  on 
the  manuscript.  A  man  often  gets  a  better  idea  of  what 
is  correct  or  incorrect  by  reading  another's  work  than  by 
reading  his  own. 

For  practice  in  drawing  briefs,  almost  any  of  the  better 
argumentative  productions  furnish  excellent  materials,  and 
one  selection  worthy  of  particular  recommendation  for 
this  purpose  is  "  Swift's  Relationship  to  Stella,"  men- 
tioned above. 

Presentation. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  made  clear  in  the  text, 
exercises  are  necessary  to  emphasize  the  importance,  in 
the  finished  argument,  of  the  introduction  and  the  conclu- 
sion. It  is  a  very  common  fault  for  students  to  slight  one 
or  both  of  these  parts.  The  instructor,  stating  a  simple 
proposition,  might  say :  "  Imagine  certain  conditions  under 
which  you  are  to  speak  on  this  question,  and  write  an  intro- 


35^  Argumentation  and  Debate 

duction  of  three  hundred  words,  more  or  less,  to  fit  the 
circumstances."  "How  would  you  modify  your  introduc- 
tion if  the  audience  were  opposed  to  you?"  "What 
change  would  you  make  if  you  learned  that  your  audi- 
ence would  be  composed  of  working  men  ? "  etc.  The 
same  procedure  might  be  followed  with  the  conclusion, 
the  method  of  treatment  being  decided  according  to  the 
attitude  of  the  audience,  the  turn  of  the  discussion,  or  the 
special  end  sought. 

On  the  days  when  finished  arguments  are  to  be  brought 
into  class,  some  such  list  of  questions  as  the  following 
may  be  given  to  the  students,  according  to  which  each 
man  is  to  criticise  the  forensic  of  his  neighbor. 

CRITICISM   OF   FORENSIC 
Introduction. 

A.  Are  the  definitions  clear  and  conclusive? 

I.   Are  there  any  terms  left  undefined  that  call  for 
definition  ? 

B.  Are  the  processes  of  finding  the  issues  properly 

followed  ? 

1.  Are  the  issues  stated  clearly  ? 

2.  Could  the  issues  be  stated  more  narrowly? 

C.  Is  the  partition  properly  made  ? 

D.  Is  the  introduction  phrased  so  as  to  arouse  interest  ? 

Discussion. 

A.  Is  the  connection  between  the  main  points  and  the 

proposition  made  perfectly  apparent  ? 

B.  Is  the  arrangement  in  any  way  defective  ? 

C.  Are  there  well-managed  transitions  ? 

D.  Is  the  English  clear  and  forcible  ? 

E.  In  reading  the  forensic,  do  you  get  a  clear  idea  of 

the  whole  argument  ? 


Appendix  B  357 

Conclusion. 

A.  Is  the  conclusion  clear,  brief,  and  forcible  ? 

B.  Is  the  summary  sufficient  ? 

C.  Does  persuasion  play  a  proper  part  in  the  conclusion  ? 

The  above  suggestions  are  considered  neither  exclusive 
nor  inclusive.  They  are  merely  given  as  some  of  the  ex- 
ercises that  have  proved  useful  to  students  and  instruc- 
tors during  six  or  eight  years  of  experience  in  college 
work. 


PROPERTY  OF 
»rp,nTM[f,|T  OF  ORilMATlC  ART 


INDEX 


Admissions,  or  declarations  against 
interest,  69. 

Ambiguous  terms,  fallacies  of,  119. 

Amplify  and  diminish,  in  the  conclu- 
sion, 240;  in  debate,  327. 

Analogy,  the  argument  from,  108. 

Analysis,  its  work  in  finding  the 
proposition,  19;  as  an  aid  in  refu- 
tation in  debate,  347.  ' 

Antecedent  probability,  the  argument 
from,  87;  tests  of  the  argument 
from,  91. 

Arguing  beside  the  point,  121. 

Arguing  in  a  circle,  126. 

Argumentation,  definition  of,  i ; 
power  and  universality  of,  i;  the 
twofold  nature  of,  2,  181 ;  the  four 
necessary  steps  in,  4;  diflference 
between  other  kinds  of  composition 
and,  II. 

Arguments,  definition  of,  59;  from 
authority,  79 ;  desirability  of  know- 
ing kinds  of,  85 ;  causal  connection 
in,  86;  from  antecedent  probabil- 
ity, 87;  from  sign,  95;  ad  homi- 
«^/w,  123;  ad  ignoratitiam,  12^;  ad 
hominem,  in  debate,  315. 

Arrangement,  qualities  necessary  for 
effective,  129;  unity  in,  129;  co- 
herence in,  133 ;  subordination  in, 
133 ;  sequence  in,  135 ;  emphasis 
in,  137. 

Assimilation  in  preliminary  reading, 
the  importance  and  the  method  of, 
54. 

Brief,  importance  of,  140;  relation 
of  the  finished  composition  to  the, 
141,  142,  226;  method  of  drawing 
a,  143;   the  introduction  of,  153; 

359 


example  of  a  good,  169;  explana- 
tion of  question  in,  155 ;  the  con- 
clusion of  a,  168 ;  rules  for  drawing 
a,  179 ;  use  of,  in  debate,  342. 
Burden  of  proof,  62. 

Coherence,    in    arrangement,     133; 

subordination  necessary  for,  133; 

sequence  necessary  for,  135. 
Composition  and  division,  fallacies 

of,  120. 
Conclusion,  importance  of,  131 ;   in 

a    brief,   169;    functions  of,  238; 

conviction  in,  238  ;   summaries  in, 

238 ;  amplify  and  diminish  in,  240; 

persuasion  in,  243;  the  nature  of, 

in  debate,  324. 
Conviction,  difference  between  per- 
suasion and,  2;    in  presentation, 

182 ;  in  introduction,  198. 

Debate,  difference  between  other 
forms  of  argumentation  and,  273 ; 
preliminary  reading  for,  275  ;  neces- 
sity of  studying  both  sides  of  the 
question  in,  275  ;  importance  of  the 
introduction  in,  279;  duties  of  an 
opening  speaker  in,  280,  281;  his- 
tory of  Lincoln-Douglas  debates, 
282;  adaptation  to  circumstances 
in,  288 ;  definition  of  terms  in,  293 ; 
use  of  the  issues  and  partition  in, 
294;  selection  of  main  heads  in, 
296;  personal  tone  in,  303;  sar- 
casm, ridicule,  in,  304;  the  argu- 
ment ad  hominem  in,  315;  the 
stratagem  of  asking  questions  in, 
319;  nature  of  the  conclusion  in, 
324;  duties  of  closing  speaker  in, 
324 ;    use  of   summaries  in,  325 ; 


36o 


Index 


amplify  and  diminish  in,  327 ;  the 
amount  of  written  preparation  de- 
sirable in,  331 ;  use  of  notes  in,  332, 
342;  memorizing  in,  334;  extem- 
pore method  in,  337 ;  refutation  in, 
343  ;  value  of  practice  in,  349. 

Declarations  against  interest,  or  ad- 
missions, 69. 

Definition,  in  finding  the  proposition, 
22 ;  illustration  of  method  of  defin- 
ing a  term  in  a  proposition,  22;  in 
introduction,  199;  by  authority, 
200 ;  by  the  etymological  derivation 
of  the  term,  202 ;  from  context,  203 ; 
by  analogy,  204;  by  illustration, 
205 ;  by  exclusion,  207 ;  by  analy- 
sis, 208  ;  importance  of,  in  debate, 

293. 

Dilemma,  as  method  of  refutation, 
260. 

Discussion,  the  need  of  variety  in 
presentation  of,  227;  digressions 
in,  228;  importance  of  unity  in, 
231 ;  summaries,  partitions,  and 
transitions  in,  232;  persuasion  in, 
237 ;  peculiarities  of,  in  debate,  296. 

Emphasis,  arrangement  of  materials 
for,  134, 137 ;  in  the  discussion,  228  ; 
by  repetition,  229 ;  of  main  points 
in  debate,  299. 

Evidence,  difference  between  proof, 
arguments,  and,  59;  definition  of, 
59 ;  kinds  of,  60 ;  tests  of  the  qual- 
ity of,  62 ;  hearsay,  66 ;  especially 
valuable  kinds  of,  69 ;  undesigned, 
70 ;  tests  of  the  sources  of,  72 ;  ex- 
pert, 78 ;  summary  of  the  kinds 
and  the  tests  of,  8i. 

Example,  the  two  classes  of  the  argu- 
ment from,  105 ;  tests  of  the  argu- 
ment from.  III. 

Elxtemporaneous  speaking,  differ- 
ence between  impromptu  and, 
337 ;  value  of,  in  debate,  337 ;  dan- 
gers of,  339. 

Fallacies,  classification  of"  material," 
114;  false  cause,  114;  ambiguous 


terms,  119;  composition  and  divi- 
sion, 120 ;  ignoring  the  question  or 
arguing  beside  the  point,  121. 
False  cause,  114. 

Generalization,  the  argument  by, 
105. 

History  of  the  question,  value  of,  in 
finding  the  issues,  39 ;  value  of,  in 
finding  the  proposition,  119. 

Ignoring  the  question,  121. 

Introduction,  importance  of,  130;  in 
a  brief,  153, 163  ;  work  of  conviction 
in,  198  ;  definition  in,  199  ;  explana- 
tion of  question,  the  issues,  the  par- 
tition in,  209;  work  of  persuasion 
in,  216 ;  if  speaker  is  unknown  to 
audience,  220 ;  if  audience  is  hos- 
tile, 221 ;  if  audience  is  inattentive, 
224 ;  in  debate,  279. 

Issues,  definition  of,  28;  necessity 
of  knowing,  28,  31 ;  difference  be- 
tween primary  and  subordinate, 
30, 38 ;  method  of  finding,  32 ;  sum- 
mary of  method  of  finding,  43; 
mistake  of  confusing  partition  with, 
43;  in  introduction,  210;  use  of, 
in  debate,  294. 

Logic,  difference  between  formal 
logic  and  argumentation,  84. 

Partition,  purpose  and  requisites  of, 
210;  illustrations  of,  212,  213;  use 
of,  in  the  discussion,  235 ;  use  of, 
in  debate,  294,  302. 

Personalities  in  debate,  303. 

Persuasion,  definition  of,  183;  what 
emotions  to  appeal  to  in,  186; 
adaptation  to  audience  in,  186; 
how  to  appeal  to  the  emotions  in, 
193 ;  knowledge  of  human  nature 
in,  193;  personality  in,  193;  sin- 
cerity in,  193;  modesty  in,  195; 
relation  of  leadership  between 
speaker  and  audience  necessary 
in,  196;   in  the  introduction,  216, 


Index 


361 


217,  225;  in  the  discussion,  237; 
in  the  conclusion,  243. 

Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc,  115. 

Preliminary  reading,  the  sequence  to 
be  observed  in,  49;  example  of 
method  in,  50;  what  to  look  for  in, 
53 ;  assimilation  in,  54. 

Presentation,  steps  necessary  in,  185. 

Proof,  definition  of,  59. 

Proposition,  difference  between  a 
term  and  a,  13 ;  necessity  of  having 
a,  13 ;  desirability  of  stating  the, 
15;  methods  of  formulating  the, 
16;  first  step  in  finding  the,  17; 
testing  the,  21 ;  the  mistake  of  com- 
bining two  questions  in  a  single,  26. 

Reductio  ad  absurdum,  as  method 
of  refutation,  258. 

Refutation,  arrangement  of,  139;  in 
a  brief,  166 ;  definition  and  nature 
of,  248 ;  how  much  to  refute,  249 ; 
methods  of,  254;  necessity  of  stat- 
ing clearly  the  argument  to  be 
refuted,  255  ;  reductio  ad  absurdum, 
as  method  of,  258;  dilemma,  as 
method    of,    260:     residues,    as 


method  of,  263;  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  positive  proof,  268; 
necessity  of  careful  arrangement  of 
materials  in,  269,  348 ;  in  debate, 

343. 
Residues,  as  method  of  refutation, 
263. 

Sign,  three  classes  of  the  argument 

from,  95;    tests  of  the  argument 

from,  98,  102,  104. 
Summaries,  in  the  discussion,  234; 

in  the  conclusion,  238 ;  use  of,  in 

debate,  302. 

Transitions,  use  of,  in  the  discussion, 
232. 

Unity,  in  arrangement,  129;  in  the 
discussion,  129;  functions  of  the 
introduction  in  creating,  131 ;  func- 
tions of  the  conclusion  in  creating, 
131 ;  in  refutation,  in  debate,  344. 

Writing,  importance  of  practice  in, 
7;  practice  in,  as  training  for  a 
debater,  332. 


MACMILLAN'S 

POCKET  SERIES  OF  AMERICAN  AND 
ENGLISH  CLASSICS 

UNIFORM   IN  PRICE  AND  BINDING 
Cloth    ------    25  Cents  Each 


Addison's  Sir  Roger  de  Coverley.     Edited  by  Zelma  Gray,  East  Side 

High  School,  Saginaw,  Mich. 
Browning's  Shorter  Poems.    Edited  by  Franklin  T.  Baker,  Teachers' 

College,  New  York. 
Browning,  Mrs.,  Poems  (Selected).    By  Miss  Hersey,  Boston,  Mass. 
Burke's  Speech  on  Conciliation.     Edited  by  S.  C.  Newsom,   Manual 

Training  High  School,  Indianapohs,  Ind. 
Byron's  Childe  Harold.     Edited  by  A.  J.  George,  High  School,  Newton, 

Mass. 
Byron's  Shorter  Poems.    Edited  by  Ralph  H.  Bowles,  A.M.,  Instructor 

in  English  in  the  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H. 
CarlyJe's  Essay  on  Bums,  with  Selections.    Edited  by  Willard  C. 

Gore,  Armour  Institute,  Chicago,  111. 
Chaucer's  Prologue  to  the  Book  of  the  Tales  of  Canterbury,  the  Knight's 

Tale,  and  the  Nun's  Priest's  Tale.    Edited  by  Andrew  Ingraham, 

Late  Headmaster  of  the  Swain  Free  School,  New  Bedford,  Mass. 
Coleridge's  The  Ancient  Mariner.    Edited  by  T.  F.  Huntington,  Leland 

Stanford  University. 
Cooper's  Last  of  the  Mohicans.    Edited  by  W.  K.  Wickes,  Principal  of 

High  School,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Cooper's  The  Deerslayer. 
De  Quincey's  Confessions  of  an  English  Opium   Eater.      Edited  by 

Arthur  Beatty,  University  of  Wisconsin. 
Dry  den's  Palamon  and  Arcite.    Edited  by  Percival  Chubb,  Vice  Prin- 
cipal Ethical  Culture  Schools,  New  York. 
Early  American  Orations,  i'76o-i824.     Edited  by  Louie  R.  Heller,  In- 
structor in  English  in  the  De  Witt  Clinton  High  School,  New  York  City. 
Epoch-making  Papers  in  United  States  History.     Edited  by  Marshall 

S.  Brown,  Professor  of  History,  New  York  University. 
Franklin's  Autobiography. 
George  Eliot's  Silas  Marner.    Edited  by  E.  L.  GULICK,  Lawrenceville 

School,  Lawrenceville,  N.  J. 
Goldsmith's  Vicar  of  Wakefield.    Edited  by  H.  W.  Boynton,  Phillips 

Academy,  Andover,  Mass. 
Hawthorne's  Twice  Told  Tales.     By  C.  R.  Gaston,  Richmond  Hill  High 

School,  Borough  of  Queens,  New  York  City. 
Irving's  Alhambra.    Edited  by  Alfred  M.  Hitchcock,  Hartford  Public 

High  School,  Conn. 
Irving's  Life  of  Goldsmith.    Edited  by  Gilbert  S.  Blakely,  A.M., 

Teacher  of  English  in  the  Morris  High  School,  New  York  City. 
Irving's  Sketch  Book, 

iohn  Woolman's  Journal, 
-ongfellow's  Evangeline.      Edited  by  Lewis  B.  Semple,  Commercial 
High  School,  Brooklyn. 
Lowell's  Vision  of  Sir  Launfal.    Edited  by  Herbert  E.  Bates,  Manual 
Training  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


•american  anU  (JBnjglisIj  ({Dlasstcs 


Macaulay's  Essay  on  Addison.  Edited  by  C.  W.  French,  Principal  of 
Hyde  Park  High  School,  Chicago,  111. 

Macaulay's  Essay  on  Clive.  Edited  by  J.  W.  Pearce,  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor of  English  in  Tulane  University. 

Macaulay's  Essay  on  Milton.     Edited  by  C.  W.  French. 

Macaulay's  Essay  on  Warren  Hastings.  Edited  by  Mrs.  M.  J.  Frick, 
Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Milton's  Comus,  Lycidas,  and  Other  Poems.  Edited  by  Andrew  J. 
George,  Newton,  Mass. 

Milton's  Paradise  Lost.  Books  I  and  II.  Edited  by  W.  I.  Crane,  Steele 
High  School,  Dayton,  O. 

Poe's  Prose  Tales  (Selections  from). 

Pope's  Homer's  Iliad.  Edited  by  Albert  Smyth,  Head  Professor  of 
English  Language  and  Literature,  Central  High  School,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Ruskin's  -Sesame  and  Lilies,  and  King  of  the  Golden  River.  Edited  by 
Herbert  E.  Bates,  Manual  Training  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.Y. 

Scott's  lyanhoe.  Edited  by  ALFRED  M.  HiTCHCOCK,  Hartford  Public 
High  School,  Conn. 

Scott's  Lady  of  the  Lake.  Edited  by  Elizabeth  A.  Packard,  Oak- 
land, Cal. 

Scott's  Marmion.  Edited  by  George  B.  Aiton,  State  Inspector  of  High 
Schools  for  Minnesota. 

Shakespeare's  As  You  Like  It.  Edited  by  Charles  Robert  Gaston, 
Teacher  of  English,  Richmond  Hill  High  School,  Queens  Borough, 
New  York  City. 

Shakespeare's  Hamlet.  Edited  by  L.  A.  Sherman,  Professor  of  English 
in  the  University  of  Nebraska. 

Shakespeare's  Julius  Caesar.  Edited  by  George  W.  Hufford  and 
Lois  G.  Hufford,  High  School,  Indianapolis,  Ind, 

Shakespeare's  Macbeth.  Edited  by  C.  W.  French,  Hyde  Park  High 
School. 

Shakespeare's  Merchant  of  Venice.  Edited  by  Charlotte  W.  Under- 
wood, Lewis  Institute,  Chicago,  111. 

Shelley  and  Keats  (Selections  from).  Edited  by  S.  C.  Newsom,  Manual 
Training  High  School,  IndianapoHs,  Ind. 

Southern  Poets.  Edited  by  W.  L.  Weber,  Professor  of  English  Litera- 
ture in  Emory  College,  Oxford,  Ga. 

Spenser's  Faerie  Queene.  Book  I.  Edited  by  George  A.  Wauchope, 
M.A.,  Professor  of  English  in  the  South  Carolina  College. 

Stevenson's  Treasure  Island.  Edited  by  Hiram  Albert  Vance,  Ph.D. 
(Jena),  Professor  of  English  in  the  University  of  Nashville. 

Tennyson's  The  Princess.  Edited  by  Wilson  Farrand,  Newark 
Academy,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Tennyson's  Idylls  of  the  King.  Edited  by  W.  T.  Vlymen,  Principal  of 
Eastern  District  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Tennyson's  Shorter  Poems.  Edited  by  Charles  R.  Nutter,  A.B.,  In- 
structor in  English  at  Harvard  University. 

Wordsworth's  Shorter  Poems.  Selections.  Edited  by  Edward  Fulton, 
Ph.D.,  Assistant  Professor  of  Rhetoric  in  the  University  of  Illinois. 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

68  FIFTH   AVENUE,   NEW   YORK 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


njunsr 


iJ»/WK'5^^ 


^^*>S\X 


-oOfK 


lAOct' 


RECD  LD 

SEP  80  I960 

LD  21-100m-ll,'49(B71468l6)476 


^B  02368 


*.«f*-  ^  ■•* 


